|
The F/A-18E/F is considered the same class of airplane as the F/A-18C/D and they're not even the same shape, size, or...well anything.
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Because the Connie refit was pretty much the same hull aside from some cosmetic changes. The nx 01 refit adds an entirely new hull. Saying they are the same class is like saying the nebula is the same as the galaxy. Ugh. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28NCC-1701%29 Nerds posted:System upgrades with new technologies after long deployments were far from unusual in her history, but the Enterprise's overhaul of the early 2270s became a nearly keel-up redesign and reconstruction project. http://fsd.trekships.org/enterprise/1701-refit.html more nerds posted:Following the completion of Kirk's first five-year mission, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was recalled to Spacedock for a major overhaul. Minor modifications had been made in the past, but by 2270 the advent of new technologies meant that every system needed to be upgraded while the interior was completely redecorated and refurbished. Captain Willard Decker was in charge of the refit and he was given technical assistance by Montgomery Scott. The overhaul was so comprehensive that it actually increased the length of the Enterprise from 289 meters to 305 meters. If the 2270 refit doesn't "officially" qualify as a new ship class than the uprated NX certainly wouldn't, since they changed more on the Enterprise than they would have on the NX. There was a really neat little animated GIF I remember from years ago that shows how significant the changes are but I can't find it, anybody know what I'm talking about? MisterBibs posted:Except when the "actual, reasonable criticism" is the fans finding dubious faults. Maybe you're right. We could talk some more about how the show's art direction was largely bland, uninspired, and at times inappropriately derivative, but it's best to focus on the more important issues, like how badly written and acted it was more often than not.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Maybe you're right. We could talk some more about how the show's art direction was largely bland, uninspired, and at times inappropriately derivative Your opinions on this subject are pretty bad. Tighclops posted:The NX wouldn't have been shat on so badly if they hadn't straight up lifted exact surface details from the Akira rather than just the basic shape; it came across as lazy. Even the deflector dish feels mashed into the front of the saucer like an afterthought. The deflector dish position makes more sense on the NX than in any other design. If it's supposed to project a force field that pushes incoming particles away then the absolute best position would be right on the front of the ship where the field would not be obstructed. The refit design literally just adds a neck and extends the nacelle pylons and adds a deflector module thing with pretty much the same shape as the Constitution without any regard for how it effects the rest of the design, and yet this doesn't seem like it was added on as an afterthought, but the deflector position does? Take away the twin-hulls from that design and it pretty much the Constitution. The NX admittedly was copied from the Akira right down to the surface detailes, but on the whole, it worked. It's a flying saucer with nacelles. It's definitely a better alternative to another Constitution clone. Besides, the Akira barely exists as a thing. It just appears in the background in a few episodes I guess, but it's never something we really get to look at. Unless Star Trek's 5th series was going to be set in the 24th century again, the Akiraprise was a good way to give the design some actual on screen exposure. quote:The rest of the show was the same basic corridors (my god, if the ship is so bloody small why did you make like 5 more corridors than the last show) and rooms built for TMP spraypainted copper with actual flatscreen monitors bolted on. I appreciate all the little nods to TOS the designers thought to include in that stuff but overall it looked very plain visually until they started adding colour and blinkies in the last season. Have you actually ever watched Enterprise? The interiors were way busier than anything featured in TNG to VOY, which was just all flat and grey or beige. Have you seen what the inside of the ISS looks like? Basically a bunch of computers and instruments bolted to the walls. The designers did a fantastic job blending "24th century design" with what real space things look like. Subyng fucked around with this message at 05:51 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Ugh. How do any of the  you presented counter the fact that the Connie refit ultimately was cosmetic? The bits were redesigned, sure, but all the major parts remained in the same places they used to. Therefore, cosmetic design.Tighclops posted:Maybe you're right. We could talk some more about how the show's art direction was largely bland, uninspired, and at times inappropriately derivative, but it's best to focus on the more important issues, like how badly written and acted it was more often than not. Enterprise had its faults, but its art direction wasn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:I really hate the secondary hull refit. That's not a refit. That's a whole new ship class, and a lovely, lazy one at that. A refit is what happened to the Connie; new nacelles, new deflector, replacing the interior decorating with new and modern touches, but the ship is largely the same. The NX-refit guts the entire ship to move the reactor into its own hull, and so much poo poo is done to it that it is no longer the same ship at all. Because it looks rad as hell. I need to finish painting my NX-01 refit model. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
So I've been watching more Enterprise, and I've actually been enjoying some of it quite a lot. Seems the more sci-fi an episode, the better the writing tends to be. Also Jeffrey Combs excellent as usual. Earth should abandon the Vulcans and form the Terran-Andorian empire. Conversely however, I recently had a season 2 episode where the culmination of the plot consisted of "It was all a dream". Let me repeat that; It Was All A Dream. How the hell did that get through the writers' room? Shouldn't you learn how terrible an idea that is before you even know what a screenplay is? My flatmate is still enjoying his TV watching more, but apparently he really loving loves Highlander?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:How do any of the That's...not a cosmetic design thing. Cosmetic change to your bathroom is a new coat of paint. If you strip it down to the studs and start over, but plop the toilet in the same place, that sure as hell isn't cosmetic, even if the toilet's in the same place as it was before. Also its not the same toilet. By that logic, the Ohio SSGN conversions are "cosmetic" because the cruise missile tubes are in the same place as the Ohio SSBN ballistic missile tubes. Even though it changed the type of the ship from an SSGN to SSBN. Cosmetic would be painting a shark mouth on the front. Stripping out the missile room to replace it with a type-altering missile room is not.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
mossyfisk posted:Seems the more sci-fi an episode, the better the writing tends to be. Interesting. I wonder if this is true across the franchise? I mean, is there an obvious relationship between quality/entertainment and adherence to ~*~canon~*~?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Sash! posted:That's...not a cosmetic design thing. Cosmetic change to your bathroom is a new coat of paint. If you strip it down to the studs and start over, but plop the toilet in the same place, that sure as hell isn't cosmetic, even if the toilet's in the same place as it was before. Also its not the same toilet. I dunno, I'd call those changes cosmetic. It's still the same bathroom. I can still walk to it and take a piss without turning on the light.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
It occurs to me that the fledgling Earth Starfleet, without the luxury of a large industrial base that the Federation would later have (or the multiple years it takes to design and build an entirely new ship class from scratch), would be forced to work with modular designs much more than in later years. Technology is advancing pretty rapidly during Enterprise, and it makes sense to me that Starfleet would go, "hmm, we could take ten years and design an entirely new ship class that fulfills the needs of our current mission profile and just run the two NX-class ships we have ragged in the meantime, or we could upgrade the NX's with new components/design as they go along, saving time while simultaneously getting another 10-15 years of life out of them. I mean, it's not unprecedented even in our time. Aircraft carriers of the US Navy have had entire conning towers removed and completely replaced with brand new ones, and this is from a military that DOES have the luxury of throwing a massive amount of time and resources into building a completely new and arguably unnecessary major ship class.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
And then you'd get lost on the way to the bathroom and need a passing ensign to direct you to the turbolift because it's practically a new bloody ship just like the last main character you saw told you
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Drone posted:this is from a military that DOES have the luxury of throwing a massive amount of time and resources into building a completely new and arguably unnecessary major ship class. The Ford class isn't entirely new, as I understand it. They're basically the Connie Refit to the Connie Original; the actual technology and details inside are all modern and different, but the overall thing is built on a copy/paste of the Nimitz with a few modifications from experience. It's a Nimitz modernisation that's too extreme to retrofit to existing vessels. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 06:54 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
Subyng posted:...Or the designs that speculate the lineage of the not-officially-canon Daedalus design that has a spherical hull to the TOS Enterprise...  Tighclops posted:Ugh. You missed the spergiest of sperg sites: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/constitution-refit.htm Here's just a snippet: quote:Pertaining to the interior of the secondary hull, the most obvious changes are that the shuttlebay was significantly enlarged (not on the later Enterprise-A where the shuttlebay as it is visible in "Star Trek V" looks like it is much smaller than even in TOS) and the ship now has a M/ARA occupying multiple decks. It is possible that the former engine control room did not include the actual warp core and thus looked very different. Yet, the dilithium chamber of the warp core or at least its load lock was located there at latest since 2268 (as seen in TOS: "Elaan of Troyius"). So it is obvious that the old engine room doesn't exist any longer. Moreover, since the new warp pylons are sloped instead of running straight up from the hull, we have to assume that the path of the power transfer conduits inside the engineering hull has accordingly changed, and so would have the location of the warp core and main engineering. The absence of a external deflector dish would necessitate moving the whole sensor and other equipment backward.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Looking at the NX-01, I sort of do think, though, that it would have looked better as a 'flatter' and almost more simple design. I seem to remember someone mentioned that the look of the TOS ships compared to the NX-01 and the Ent-D is maybe based on more of them being a product of a more massive exploration/expansionism. They looked more more utilitarian and practical because they were designed as a more mass production model to get as many crews and ships out into service as possible. By that token, I can sort of expand that to be maybe why Scotty had such a fondness for the original 1701: It's part of a stock ship line-up that was maybe that given some conservative specs by TPTB to keep people from tearing the ships up, but he has none of that and decides to upgrade and tweak it all himself to the ship he thinks it should be.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
I don't know why I'm torturing myself by watching TNG in order. I'm watching "Lonely Among Us" and Data did a Sherlock Holmes impression. Were people just so excited over a new Trek series that poo poo like this was glazed over?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Knormal posted:Sisko had a model Daedalus in his office, that makes them just as real as a baseball Bernd Schneider suffers for our collective Trek sins.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 13:16
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Were people just so excited over a new Trek series that poo poo like this was glazed over?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Whalley posted:Yup. TNG has some loving awesome episodes, but it was also the first Star Trek to hit the small screen since 1969 and could do whatever it fuckin' wants. It's like Field of Dreams: if they built it, fans would come regardless of quality. Yes and no; if memory serves, TNG was under-performing to the point that Paramount considered canceling the show as a result of the 1988 writers' strike.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
I think Enterprise and the NX-class would've really benefited from going with the original design by Doug Drexler.quote:Drexler had intended for the ship to be similar in design to the Daedalus-class starship with a sphere-shaped primary hull, but the producers wanted a flat saucer-shaped hull as it was more immediately recognisable as a Star Trek vessel.[20] Drexler deliberately attempted to insert references to The Original Series into the ship. One of these was narrow struts leading from the body of the ship to the warp nacelles – however Dan Curry wanted them made bulkier as seen in ships of later series. Drexler included a leading edge at the front of the nacelles, and later described that the original struts would have been around a third more than those.[27]
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Timby posted:Yes and no; if memory serves, TNG was under-performing to the point that Paramount considered canceling the show as a result of the 1988 writers' strike. That's a new one on me. Although, TNG was a pretty expensive show.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
You also have to understand. It was 1988. No, seriously, it was 1988. We've come a long long way in story telling for the small screen in the past 26 years.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That's a new one on me. Although, TNG was a pretty expensive show. You kind of have to consider the context. In addition to it being a pretty expensive show, it was a pretty toxic production environment. There was a reason Roddenberry got booted upstairs to his "executive consultant" role following all the madness of The Motion Picture's script, schedule overruns and money problems, and as the television division found out, eight more years of drinking and drugging had, astonishingly, not turned Roddenberry into a better producer. By the time the writers' strike began, one star had already left the series due to sexual harassment, Gerrold and Fontana had been pushed out by Roddenberry's erratic behavior, Bob Justman wasn't far behind them, their lead star was already vocally unhappy, and Roddenberry's lawyer was rewriting scripts and interfering on the sets. It wouldn't have been hard to fault Paramount at that point for saying, "gently caress this, let's just squeeze what we can out of anymore movies Shatner and Nimoy are willing to do and call it a day."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I dunno, I'd call those changes cosmetic. It's still the same bathroom. I can still walk to it and take a piss without turning on the light.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
I can't imagine a spherical NX-01 looking anything but terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
That's no moon. That's a Warp-5 starship! 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Timby posted:You kind of have to consider the context. In addition to it being a pretty expensive show, it was a pretty toxic production environment. There was a reason Roddenberry got booted upstairs to his "executive consultant" role following all the madness of The Motion Picture's script, schedule overruns and money problems, and as the television division found out, eight more years of drinking and drugging had, astonishingly, not turned Roddenberry into a better producer. By the time the writers' strike began, one star had already left the series due to sexual harassment, Gerrold and Fontana had been pushed out by Roddenberry's erratic behavior, Bob Justman wasn't far behind them, their lead star was already vocally unhappy, and Roddenberry's lawyer was rewriting scripts and interfering on the sets. Not only that, but didn't Gerrold threaten to fight for co-creator status? That would have been ugly and incredibly negative to see on the news.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Timby posted:You kind of have to consider the context. In addition to it being a pretty expensive show, it was a pretty toxic production environment. There was a reason Roddenberry got booted upstairs to his "executive consultant" role following all the madness of The Motion Picture's script, schedule overruns and money problems, and as the television division found out, eight more years of drinking and drugging had, astonishingly, not turned Roddenberry into a better producer. By the time the writers' strike began, one star had already left the series due to sexual harassment, Gerrold and Fontana had been pushed out by Roddenberry's erratic behavior, Bob Justman wasn't far behind them, their lead star was already vocally unhappy, and Roddenberry's lawyer was rewriting scripts and interfering on the sets. Wait, did Denise Crosby leave because of harassment? I had always thought it was just a combination of her character being written horribly and expectations that the show was going to cancel.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted:Wait, did Denise Crosby leave because of harassment? I had always thought it was just a combination of her character being written horribly and expectations that the show was going to cancel. Pretty sure Timby is referring to Gates McFadden.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty sure Timby is referring to Gates McFadden. Ah, okay. I'd actually forgotten that she took off for a season.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty sure Timby is referring to Gates McFadden. Wrong. It was Chief Engineer Argyle. After getting his mom to write in about how awesome he was, and got found out, he was forced to do very unsavoury things to get any more appearances. When that didn't work, he cried sexua harrassment, the slut.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Not only that, but didn't Gerrold threaten to fight for co-creator status? That would have been ugly and incredibly negative to see on the news. He had a "program consultant" role for a while, which was Paramount's way of compromising with him (Roddenberry said, "Just take the title for now and I'll fight for the bigger credit.") And you can make an argument that he absolutely deserved some sort of co-creator or producer credit, given how much he contributed to the setting and the characters of the show. But the big thing was the fuckery over his "Blood and Fire" script, which was rewritten without his permission because the bosses weren't comfortable with an AIDS story. After that, his contract expired and he had no desire to work with Roddenberry any further. Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty sure Timby is referring to Gates McFadden. Correct; Maurice Hurley convinced Roddenberry to fire McFadden after she refused his (Hurley's) advances. Again, early TNG behind the scenes was a mess.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:What if the toilet was on the wall and the sink was on the ceiling? Because the refit reoriented the warp core 90 degrees. The warp core's orientation is immaterial, though, that's just  . The core physical parts (saucer, secondary hull, warp engines) are all in basically the same place, making the changes to those parts cosmetic changes.Bicyclops posted:Wait, did Denise Crosby leave because of harassment? I had always thought it was just a combination of her character being written horribly and expectations that the show was going to cancel. I don't know if it counts as being "written horribly", but I think Crosby left because her character pretty much had nothing of substance to do. I recall reading that the episode she's killed in (or might've been the one before, I can't remember), Yar has a little scene that Crosby basically said "I wouldn't have quit if there were more scenes like that".
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:The warp core's orientation is immaterial, though, that's just Cosmetic changes are when it looks different and does the same thing, not looks the same and does different things.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Cosmetic changes are when it looks different and does the same thing, not looks the same and does different things. We're in agreement. The saucer did the same thing the saucer always did, the secondary hull did the same thing the secondary hell always did, and the engines did the same thing the engines always did. The refit was a purely cosmetic one with some pointless making said cosmetic change seem less like a cosmetic change than it was.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:I can't imagine a spherical NX-01 looking anything but terrible. I dunno, I think this looks pretty awesome.   about made up technology, but why would shields "degrade" when hit, anyway? The whole idea of shields "down to 30%" or whatever doesn't really make sense at least based on my understanding of how real life field-things work. If whatever is hitting the shields stops hitting it, then there shouldn't be any reason why the field strength would not return to 100%, right?
Subyng fucked around with this message at 22:46 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
The structure of the ship was also significantly changed on the inside. Is it a cosmetic change if you expand your garage to hold more cars by getting rid of the Is it a cosmetic change if you replace your entire HVAC system with a newer, more efficient one? Is it a cosmetic change if you knock down a bunch of walls and put up a bunch of other walls? No, it's not, it was a significant rebuild of the ship. I understand what you're trying to say but you're not using the word "cosmetic" correctly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I dunno, I think this looks pretty awesome. I think that ship was the one old timey Picard took and got owned by a bunch of Klingons. Alright bear with me for the second part because I'm making most of this up. Shields are just electric fields in alignment to deflect incoming particle weapons, beams, Kirk's boner, etc. When something hits the field it knocks it out of alignment. Ever make a magnet out of a nail by rubbing it against another magnet? Like that! The % is the current alignment with respect to maximum. Then throw in recharge time via capacitors to recharge the shields and bam! Functional technobabble!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:The structure of the ship was also significantly changed on the inside. You're taking an in-universe perspective. I suspect other people involved in this argument aren't. WRT shield degradation, I always figured it was something like the.. capacitor banks for running the shields. If the shields are up without taking damage, the normal power from the ship's engines are enough to keep the charge topped up, but impacts and beams and such hitting the shields cause a massive discharge of the batteries, leaving them depleted down to 47% or whatever. hailthefish fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:19 |
|
|
hailthefish posted:You're taking an in-universe perspective. I suspect other people involved in this argument aren't. All changes are cosmetic changes then. Aside from the cloak on the first of these, the Defiant, Voyager and Enterprises NX-01 through to 1701-E are identical from a storytelling-engineering perspective. They all have shields, some kind of weapons, transporters, crew, medbays, engineering, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:10
|
|