|
MisterBibs posted:The warp core's orientation is immaterial, though, that's just Go post in AI and tell them that swapping a longitudinal motor for a transverse motor is immaterial and cosmetic and report back.
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:13
|
|
. The core physical parts (saucer, secondary hull, warp engines) are all in basically the same place, making the changes to those parts cosmetic changes.
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
I think people are getting too far into semantics. Let's step way back and take a look at the big picture. During the Connie refit, sure they did a lot of stuff inside but the overall outside shape remained the same. On the NX-01 refit, they added an entirely new secondary hull to it. Take a silhouette of the 1701 and 1701A, they are about the same. Take a silhouette of the NX-01 and the refit and they are drastically different. That's why we are saying the NX-01 refit should be a new class. It's the difference between a Connie and a Miranda. You can't in a million years say that adding an entirely new hull to a ship is the same as making the connie longer and swapping out all the insides.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
We can all agree that repainting the bathroom, moving the toilet and sink around, and installing on-demand hot water instead of a tank is still a less drastic change than adding two additional floors to your house, though, right?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
This is the dumbest discussion ever even by Trek standards.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Take a silhouette of the 1701 and 1701A Refit != A, by the way. The A was another Constitution class named Enterprise after the original was blown up in Search for Spock.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Refit != A, by the way. The A was another Constitution class named Enterprise after the original was blown up in Search for Spock. Uh you mean another Constitution Refit class.  Is it possible to catch Aspergers from a something awful dot com forum thread? I don't feel so good. Owlbear Camus fucked around with this message at 01:07 on May 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
you doomed yourself the moment that you gave Lowtax your  .
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Subyng posted:This is the dumbest discussion ever even by Trek standards. Not empty quoting this. So how bad is JJTrek 3: Dumb Subtitle going to be?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:Not empty quoting this. Star Trek: The Search for, oh wait.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Subyng posted:This is the dumbest discussion ever even by Trek standards. You guys are loving out-sperging Bernd Schneider, a middle-aged German Trekker with a page detailing the changes and reuse of single-scene props in every series. My opinion: making the NX-01 look old and busted would have made for an even worse series. She is the forefront of technology for her time, and should (and does) look sleek as hell.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Further complicating the matter, I remember reading that Starfleet anticipated a hundred years' service out of most of their starships. There were still a bunch of Excelsiors and Ambassadors around during the TNG area (well, Excelsiors anyway) - they were projected to bring in the Galaxy classes every twenty years for a major overhaul. Just how old was the Enterprise originally? Maybe the break between TOS and TMP was just the equivalent of that. As for the NX thing, wouldn't it still be the same type of ship because it's fundamentally experimental? I'm not sure what the deal is with research testbed types.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Here's a question, Why do the Fed ships use the saucer/nacelle design? what was the reason behind designing the Enterprise like that in TOS and following it for successive shows, barring the Defiant.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Here's a question, Why do the Fed ships use the saucer/nacelle design? what was the reason behind designing the Enterprise like that in TOS and following it for successive shows, barring the Defiant. Warp field dynamics!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
I love you Flipswitch posted:Here's a question, Why do the Fed ships use the saucer/nacelle design? what was the reason behind designing the Enterprise like that in TOS and following it for successive shows, barring the Defiant. Roddenberry's Design Rules: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted: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. Yes, if you think about it from a real-world point of view, because television is a largely visual medium, all changes are cosmetic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Subyng posted:I dunno, I think this looks pretty awesome. I'm not saying that looks like it should be hauling garbage, I'm saying it looks like it should be hauled away as garbage.  The Daedalus class looks like some old workhorse class designed to do some routine unglamorous job cheaply and effectively. The NX-01 is supposed to be the start of a new era of space exploration, and the pride of starfleet. In order to look the part its gotta look fast and mean. Also yeah I'm in the camp that shield percentages were supposed to be some sort of depletable energy reserve from the main reactor's output.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:51
|
|
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?
|
Timby posted: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. "Blood and Fire" was produced by one of the fan series as well as a novel in the Star Wolf series by Gerrold. I've read the novel, it's damned good.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Gene Roddenberry posted:Rule #1 Warp nacelles *must* be in pairs. Um... 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Um... Remind me what exactly Roddenberry had to do with that? If he couldn't nix things when he was alive, its a tad unfair to expect him to do it when he is dead.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
God, I love Ex Astris Scientia:quote:Usually the MSDs are practical size references, for we know that an average deck of a Starfleet ship should be 3.5m, at most 4m tall. The corrected Defiant MSD (image) was modified for the DS9TM and now encompasses four decks. Looking closely, the MSD even shows persons who are 50% as tall as once deck spacing. The question may crop up whether people in the 24th century shouldn't be much taller than the average 20th century adult. The answer is a clear-cut no for which we find evidence in numerous episodes where Starfleet personnel goes on time travel or finds survivors in cryogenic chambers. Shame. I was hoping for a Star Trek series where everyone is 3 feet tall.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:Um... There's one on the bottom and one on the top. It's still a pair.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
The AV Club is almost done with DS9, and their reviewer, Zach Handlen, really seems to get it: http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/star-trek-deep-space-nine-dogs-war-204059  spoilers if you haven't finished DS9, I guess quote:
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Remind me what exactly Roddenberry had to do with that? If he couldn't nix things when he was alive, its a tad unfair to expect him to do it when he is dead. He was there in spirit. Or something like that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:He was there in spirit. Or something like that. Gene Roddenberry is my spirit animal.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Here's a question, Why do the Fed ships use the saucer/nacelle design? what was the reason behind designing the Enterprise like that in TOS and following it for successive shows, barring the Defiant. It started out as mostly aesthetics. They didn't want just a saucer (like Forbidden Planet), and they absolutely didn't want to do a pointed-cigar rocket. Matt Jeffries - the guy who designed the Enterprise - suggested that the nacelles would be out on pylons like that because when they were active there'd be some nasty radiation or fields or something flowing around and between them. Also, they were intended to be field-replaceable; if one or both of the nacelles was hosed, you could just tow a replacement nacelle out, disconnect the busted one, bolt on the new one, and you were ready to rock and roll. The "nacelles must be in pairs" thing didn't come around until the late 70s or the early 80s, when Gene Roddenberry decreed that the speculative designs in Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual - which Franz had consulted Roddenberry on previously - were "wrong" because of various rules (nacelles must be in pairs, must have line of sight to each other... something else I can't remember, I think) which his scout/destroyer and dreadnought designs had violated. Even without that though, it makes good dramatic and aesthetic sense for the series to continue using saucer/nacelle designs for Starfleet ships; it creates a visual shorthand by which the audience can recognize Starfleet vessels.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Even without that though, it makes good dramatic and aesthetic sense for the series to continue using saucer/nacelle designs for Starfleet ships; it creates a visual shorthand by which the audience can recognize Starfleet vessels. Yeah, I remember there being a rule when they were designing DS9 that you should be able to easily pick out a lead ship/station based on a stick figure sketch, and this kind of extends it to culture.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
GET hosed, Q. God drat I hate this rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Yeah, I remember there being a rule when they were designing DS9 that you should be able to easily pick out a lead ship/station based on a stick figure sketch, and this kind of extends it to culture. This is just how visual design works. You create strong silhouettes so your "characters" (in this case ships) are immediately recognizable. DS9 is instantly identifiable, and so is Empok Nor! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
As this gif points out, pretty much everything remains where it was, it just looks different. The changes are - faith and begorrah - cosmetic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Haha, loving ridiculous. Yup, that's Grandpa's Axe, alright. For that to be comparable to the NX Refit, though, there would have to be a second secondary hull, perhaps raised above the saucer with additional struts poking down to the nacelles.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:As this gif points out, pretty much everything remains where it was, it just looks different. The changes are - faith and begorrah - cosmetic. Do you even know what the word cosmetic means!?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:This is just how visual design works. You create strong silhouettes so your "characters" (in this case ships) are immediately recognizable. DS9 is instantly identifiable, and so is Empok Nor! 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:This is just how visual design works. You create strong silhouettes so your "characters" (in this case ships) are immediately recognizable. DS9 is instantly identifiable, and so is Empok Nor! I know, I just mean for the most part they extended the concept to whole cultures.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:As this gif points out, pretty much everything remains where it was, it just looks different. The changes are - faith and begorrah - cosmetic. You don't know what the word "cosmetic" means. If you replace the engines on a spaceship, it's not a cosmetic change! If you're talking about the picture of the spaceship, then yes, it's a cosmetic change, in the sense that Photoshop Phriday pictures are cosmetic changes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
But Star Trek engines aren't real. All the engines are identical in how they function, which is to say they don't. From the viewer's perspective, it's all cosmetic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Hang on a second. Do actual Navy ships ever change class, no matter what's done to them? Take the USS Texas. She was designed as a World War I era dreadnought: Then she got modernized in the '20s which included re-doing massive amounts of her hull:  Then she got her secondary armament completely re-done after Pearl Harbor, but at no time was anything other than a New York Class Battleship. Why, then, would Starfleet (which took a lot of its practices from the World War II era US Navy through Gene) go willy nilly changing ships classes, regardless of the structural changes to either the NX- or Constitution class ships?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
I can't help but feel like we could probably go dig up some ancient Usenet debates over this thing and jump to the conclusion already
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
I know all debates are about semantics to an extent, but sheesh. Here is a "cosmetic change" worth discussing:
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Bajoran class psychopath.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 05:10
|
|