Thought I'd post a link to the only cgi model I saw of the E-J so far. Its on another board so I hope its not a prob.
RAMA
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
That guy does nice work. I still think the saucer is eliptical, though.
Mark
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
The pictures I've seen of the ship seem to suggest that the saucer is wider than it is long.
Posted by Wes1701J (Member # 212) on :
HAHAHAHAHAH ITS THE TREKKIES MULLET KID.
Hillarious. Back on AOL this kid was annoying as all hell. Thank god I got out of CG long enough to realize AOL sucked and left that circle forever. He used to troll on my art on "The Bridge" chat all the time
I cant even find the Ent-J
Too bad his CGI work became so much more succesfull then mine.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
Are you sure guys it's not the perspective? To my inexperiencied eye it looks circular Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
That mullet guy in "Trekkies" was SOOOO... y'know.
Like when Conan O'Brien does his 'nerd' impression. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
The saucer to me was ellipsoid.
How did he get an underside view? What you saw of it was just a computer graphic of the top and maybe a bit of the side!
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: The saucer to me was ellipsoid.
How did he get an underside view?
I'm guessing, and don't hold me to this, that it was improvised.
...and I agree, the saucer is too circular in this CGI.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, he did say that he knows the guy who designed it, so he may have had some hints...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ummm...."the guy that designed it", I believe, would John Eaves as he's Enterprise's illustrator.
Eaves will be a key guest at Wonderfest later this month and several of us modelers will be asking many questions about this new ship.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Can you also ask why his designs always look similar - i.e. pointy some-what... and/or have those half-moon pods on them... like the Jemmie battlecruiser, the Valdore or the "ENT" Klingon ship.
Posted by Ayre (Member # 1218) on :
Alright, am I the only one having trouble finding this supposed image of the E-J? Is it hidding away in a mystery directory? is it if I assmble the 1st, 4th and 9th Battlestar Galactica images? Do I decode the 1's and 0's of the site to make an ASCII picture?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Basically, [the Enterprise-J's designer]had three strong designs for the J, and in the end the producers did indeed pick a different one than his personal favorite.
Hmm. Interesting. I wonder what the other designs looked like.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Can you also ask why his designs always look similar - i.e. pointy some-what... and/or have those half-moon pods on them... like the Jemmie battlecruiser, the Valdore or the "ENT" Klingon ship.
Sure! I'll ask Sternbach whay all his ships have that damned notch carved out of their nose while I'm at it.
I would call him on the blatant re-use of dominion nacelles on the Enterprise RBOP and Paptor.
[ March 09, 2004, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Actually, the Raptor's nacelles aren't too bad; however, I have to agree with you on the PBOP. The nacelles are so similar to a Jem'Hadar ship's, it's ridiculous.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Possibly not all the re-use is Eaves' fault: many designs are altered subtly for time constraints or miscommunication between the illustrator and the modemakers. Hell, the Son'a command ship was intended to fly with the points facing forward (to match the overall design of the battleship) but nobody at the VFX house for Insurrection knew about it so...
Now Eaves draws a big arrow on his concept sketches to show how they move.
I'd ask him why the Reptilian Xindi ships look like the Son'a command ship and the Insectoid shuttle looks like the Reman shuttle.....but that's just razzing him, really and I DO like most of his designs.
Except the Scimitar.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: Can you also ask why his designs always look similar - i.e. pointy some-what... and/or have those half-moon pods on them... like the Jemmie battlecruiser, the Valdore or the "ENT" Klingon ship.
Sure! I'll ask Sternbach whay all his ships have that damned notch carved out of their nose while I'm at it.
Heheh... actually - which notch on what ships? The only 'notch' i can think of is from the Alex Jaeger pics... oh yeah then the Equinox had one.
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I would call him on the blatant re-use of dominion nacelles on the Enterprise RBOP and Paptor.
You don't think the Valdore's nacelles are Jemmie Battlecruiser-esque... probably the main thing I hate about that ship. NO CONTINUITY to ANY of the other Romulan designs of the past 15 years.
WB, Science Ship(s) or Romabout.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Possibly not all the re-use is Eaves' fault: many designs are altered subtly for time constraints or miscommunication between the illustrator and the modemakers. Hell, the Son'a command ship was intended to fly with the points facing forward (to match the overall design of the battleship) but nobody at the VFX house for Insurrection knew about it so...
Now Eaves draws a big arrow on his concept sketches to show how they move.
I'd ask him why the Reptilian Xindi ships look like the Son'a command ship and the Insectoid shuttle looks like the Reman shuttle.....but that's just razzing him, really and I DO like most of his designs.
Except the Scimitar.
Another thing... the movie that shall not be named (no, it's not The Final Frontier anymore)... the Scimitar I don't like either... but is there ANY design connection between IT and the Reman Shuttles?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Do complement him on the Vulcan ships though - nice continuity there.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I thought Drexler designed the Vulcan ship (the Surak, anyway).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Ummm....'the guy that designed it', I believe, would John Eaves as he's Enterprise's illustrator."
I'm sure that's probable, but I wasn't going to make any assumptions.
"The only 'notch' i can think of is from the Alex Jaeger pics... oh yeah then the Equinox had one."
The Equinox had one because it was taken from the Defiant "pathfinder" in the DS9TM. And the notch in that came from the notch in the front of the Defiant that appears when you pull out the nose.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yeah....but Sternbach made most of the Defiant stuff and the Pathfinder too. ....Sternbach is more famous for that damn secondary deflector trench on his designs.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
2ndry deflector trench?
It's on the Voyager... what else? I think Sternbach put more of a utilitarian thought process into his designs. Eaves does a lot of pretty arcs. Hey lacks design continuity though... although yes this maybe due to the producers... but I'm sure he could rotate on a theme. As mentioned above - yeah the Vulcan ships are by Drexler and they are uber nice. They also fit nicely between First Contact, TOS movies and TNG.
Andrew
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"NO CONTINUITY to ANY of the other Romulan designs of the past 15 years."
All... two of them?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "NO CONTINUITY to ANY of the other Romulan designs of the past 15 years."
All... two of them?
forgive him, he must still play SFC3 and all the reasonably good romy ship designs people have made since theat games release...
and a related question, those designs have no hope of ever becoming cannon...but why? Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "NO CONTINUITY to ANY of the other Romulan designs of the past 15 years."
All... two of them?
Lesse...
TOS era: BOP, Battlecruiser TNG era: D'Deridex - (looks to cobine both above designs) "The Neutral Zone" Scout Vessel "The Defector" retains A LOT of the feel of the D'Deridex but on a smaller scale. Science Vessel "The Next Phase".
DS9: "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" The affectionately known "Romabout" again takes the Romulan design on the small side to give us something new but very obviously romulan. Still fits nicely with what we had seen over the last 12 years of Romulan tech.
"Nemesis": Valdore. Eaves-esque 'nacelle pods'. Everything all pointy (why - this isn't fluidic space). That's beside the point. The ship doesn't really match anything we've seen of the Romulans previously - apart from the colour - and even that is off. It looks like an Eaves'd-up Klingon Bird of Prey.
Actually - it's pretty much just the pods that annoy me in that design...
That is 5-6 Romulan designs to 'link' tech with...
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
It still has double wings, just in a different configuration than before. It still has the neck pylons, though again in a different configuration. It has a very similar head to the D'Deridex, or at least close enough that it's clearly the same race that designed it. Granted, the wing detail is way over the top, and the nacelles are stupid. But still, the Valdore to the D'deridex is like the Sovereign to the Galaxy, similar structures in a different configuration.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"TOS era"
quote:"...of the past 15 years."
And the scout/science vessel from The Defector and The Next Phase is THE SAME design, save for some minor modifications to its bridge. Thus what are we left with? The D'deridex and Vreenak's courier from In The Pale Moonlight (why you thought of Inter Arma... I don't know). Whoopdidoo, what a lineage. Here's an idea for you: be glad some new ships were built at all for Minefield and Nemesis instead of whining petulantly about how pointed their fuselages are or how their color doesn't match the EXACT RGB value of the Warbird's hull or how their nacelle pods are too Dominionish in style or whatever. Can you do that, Andrew? Just this once? Please? Because it, like, REALLY grates on my nerves to hear these complaints over and over again. More than "OMG YODA WAS SPED UP FOR AOTC CUZ TEH CGI WOULD OF LOOKED FAKE AT A LESSER PACE!!~!oneone~!!" even, and that's saying something.
Answer me this, though: if all we had seen of Starfleet were the Galaxy, the scout from Insurrection, and the Oberth, and then a movie introduced us to, oh, the Defiant, what would your first reaction be? "OMG TAHT SHIP RETAINS NOTHING OF TEH FEEL OF PREVIOUS FEDERATION DESIGSN OMG!!!!" or "Hey, maybe the engineers just drifted into a new and different direction and but so therefore I don't actually have to lose my sanity over fitting it into what little continuity has already been established"? Eh? EH?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Ent-J? Was is seen on screen? Does anybody know where I can download this episode.
I'm still anti-ENT but the Vancouver @ Colorado game was on anyways. Anybody see the revenge match.
Don't mess with VanCity.
Posted by Wes1701J (Member # 212) on :
Asking for Ent eps here will get you perm-banned #83.
Hey. I still cant find the damn Ent-J CG image. All I can find is one Trek ship in his professional section.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: 2ndry deflector trench?
It's on the Voyager... what else?
The Nova has it, the Prommie sketch had it on the third section (pretty sure) and the Defiant and Hediki both have that "nozzle" thing for a deflector and those are diffrent races!
Still...I love both illustrator's work and think they've done more for Trek's look and overall coolness than amost anyone else.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wes1701J: Hey. I still cant find the damn Ent-J CG image. All I can find is one Trek ship in his professional section.
Uh...scroll down from given link?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: 2ndry deflector trench?
It's on the Voyager... what else?
The Nova has it, the Prommie sketch had it on the third section (pretty sure) and the Defiant and Hediki both have that "nozzle" thing for a deflector and those are diffrent races!
Still...I love both illustrator's work and think they've done more for Trek's look and overall coolness than amost anyone else.
Well it's called by Okuda "Technology Unchained" - or was that Gene?
Anyway - I think it's a nice next step to have the Prommie with a 2ndry deflector like The Voyager. It MAKES sense to have one too.
That Hideki notch - Didn't Chris Martin design that ship - PLUS that 'notch' is about as notchy as the Sydney Class.
Personally, I think Andy Probert, Bill George, Chris Martin and Greg Jein have had a bigger, well COOLER effect than Eaves.
The Enterprise-E may look cool from a distance - but on closer scruity it fails. I *HATE* the hull detailing - it's so... CGI-ish.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:(originally posted by Jason Abbadon): Eaves will be a key guest at Wonderfest later this month and several of us modelers will be asking many questions about this new ship.
When you talk to him, Jason, perhaps you could ask him about the other designs he made for the ENT Starfleet vessels for "The Expanse." I remember reading an interview with Eaves in which he stated that he designed five ships, but only the Intrepid & the Iceland were picked. Even descriptions would be nice, if not actual CG pics.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "TOS era"
quote:"...of the past 15 years."
And the scout/science vessel from The Defector and The Next Phase is THE SAME design, save for some minor modifications to its bridge. Thus what are we left with? The D'deridex and Vreenak's courier from In The Pale Moonlight (why you thought of Inter Arma... I don't know). Whoopdidoo, what a lineage. Here's an idea for you: be glad some new ships were built at all for Minefield and Nemesis instead of whining petulantly about how pointed their fuselages are or how their color doesn't match the EXACT RGB value of the Warbird's hull or how their nacelle pods are too Dominionish in style or whatever.
"Hey, maybe the engineers just drifted into a new and different direction and but so therefore I don't actually have to lose my sanity over fitting it into what little continuity has already been established"? Eh? EH?
1. The fact that the Romulans used the D'Deridex for nigh on 15 years is saying something.
2. I meant TNG design - OBVIOUSLY - not TOS in the 15 year remark.
3. Whining is what people do here best, but when I do it... WELL - SOH-REE!
4. Well yes I did say - that in summary the worst part about the Valdore are the "Eaves Trade-mark Pods". THAT's a long stretch for any of them
5. Didn't get into the Ship for Minefield - an Eave's design based on the classic TOS Wah Chang design. I liked it - it was nice.
6. Even if the scout/science Rommie vessels were nearly the same - says something about their vessel type reusage.
7. I AM glad in Nemesis they didn't really change the Romulan Captial city.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:(originally posted by Jason Abbadon): Eaves will be a key guest at Wonderfest later this month and several of us modelers will be asking many questions about this new ship.
When you talk to him, Jason, perhaps you could ask him about the other designs he made for the ENT Starfleet vessels for "The Expanse." I remember reading an interview with Eaves in which he stated that he designed five ships, but only the Intrepid & the Iceland were picked. Even descriptions would be nice, if not actual CG pics.
Financial considerations have made my attendance impossible, but I have a list of questions that my freinds are going to ask...I also want his opinion on the Son'a Battleship I built of his design. (I really wanted to get it signed though!).
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: 1. The fact that the Romulans used the D'Deridex for nigh on 15 years is saying something.
It's saying that TPTB couldn't be bothered building a new Romulan ship when they didn't have to. Remember, we only got one new Klingon ship design during TNG, and another in DS9, and they were in the latter show a lot more than the Romulans.
quote:The Enterprise-E may look cool from a distance - but on closer scruity it fails. I *HATE* the hull detailing - it's so... CGI-ish.
Even on the physical model?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: That Hideki notch - Didn't Chris Martin design that ship - PLUS that 'notch' is about as notchy as the Sydney Class.
Personally, I think Andy Probert, Bill George, Chris Martin and Greg Jein have had a bigger, well COOLER effect than Eaves.
I designed Trek ships? Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I think he means Jim Martin.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Lol sorry Topher... yeah Jim Martin. Isn't Chris Martin also the lead singer of Coldplay?
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Yup. And married to Gwyneth Paltrow and an expectant father, if not one already.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
And he was in Liverpool uni watching Keane a few weeks ago, apparently. But he wore a hooded top as a cunning disguise.
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: "Nemesis": Valdore. Eaves-esque 'nacelle pods'. Everything all pointy (why - this isn't fluidic space). That's beside the point. The ship doesn't really match anything we've seen of the Romulans previously - apart from the colour - and even that is off. It looks like an Eaves'd-up Klingon Bird of Prey.
Actually - it's pretty much just the pods that annoy me in that design...
So you don't like the nacelles, eh? Imagine the D'deridex nacelles with their bottom halves removed and the remains of their aft end smoothed off -- that's the Valdore nacelles. The Valdore dropped the D'deridex lower wings and the nacelle bottoms with it. The two types of nacelles are even very close in overall length. All seems reasonable to me.
The Valdore is basically a more streamlined and sleek D'deridex. It looks more striking (IMO obviously) but it's also a more practical design from a time-to-build and resource usage standpoint. The massive lower hull and tail of the D'deridex doesn't strike me as particularly practical or useful.
Comparing the Valdore to D'deridex: It still has a similar head, it still has the dual hull neck, it still has lower support framework for the wings and nacelles, the wings still have the same feather pattern, and the ship's colour is consistent with how D'deridex appeared during DS9. Even the aspects that look similar to the Klingon BoP could rather be attributed as throwbacks to the D7.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well...the only thing that kinda annoyed me about the Valdore (besides their complete ineffectivness in battle) is that the ship moves too much like a very small ship (it even banks like a KBOP when it turns!).
Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
I didn't really mind the movement of the Valdores. It seemed reasonable for them, but it did seem a bit much the way the much larger Scimitar zoomed around. And yeah, the Scimitar also took down the Romulan ships a bit too quickly/easily for my liking.
I realise that Eaves intentionally made the Valdore to be similar to the Klingon BoP, but I actually found the Scimitar to remind me of a giant BoP (in attack mode, wings down) more than anything else. The wings with guns at the end, the lowered angle of the wings, the stocky neck and body, and the inboard nacelles -- it all just reeked of uber KBoP crossed with Jemmy cruiser.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well...the only thing that kinda annoyed me about the Valdore (besides their complete ineffectivness in battle) is that the ship moves too much like a very small ship (it even banks like a KBOP when it turns!).
Really - ships shouldn't 'bank' in space... unless they are near large gravitational source.
Posted by Epoch (Member # 136) on :
Very true, but it just looks cool on TV to have them bank.
Posted by Kazeite (Member # 970) on :
What I don't like about Valdore is that this ship is so damn skinny... Like, "oh, poor guy... who starved you so much?"
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Why wouldn't a ship bank in space? Wouldn't using thrusters to bank the ship free-up the impulse engines to provide maximum forward thrust?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Aircraft bank (rotate about their longitudinal axis) when turning because their control surfaces alter the flow of air around them, which creates pressure differences that cause one wing to be pushed up and the other to be pushed down. It's a side-effect of the aerodynamic forces acting on the wings and tail. But since there IS no atmosphere in space, a starship instead has to turn by rotating about its vertical axis (yawing) with plain old thrusters and wouldn't bank at all while using them. There'd also be nothing to gain by banking manually, unless the lateral thrusters were less powerful than the ventral/dorsal ones or the IDF generators could for some reason handle a two-dimensional acceleration better than a 1D one or the impulse engine nozzles could only vector thrust vertically or whatever.
*cough* Realistically *cough*, ships should always turn like that Ambassador in the Emissary teaser.
[ March 15, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Boult (Member # 1269) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Well...the only thing that kinda annoyed me about the Valdore (besides their complete ineffectivness in battle) is that the ship moves too much like a very small ship (it even banks like a KBOP when it turns!).
Really - ships shouldn't 'bank' in space... unless they are near large gravitational source.
ships does 'bank" in space this has been done either in impulse or wrap speed.. here's some urls that mentions banking turn..
We know they have banked, but the discussion is whether they should or should not bank.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'd put it in the same catagory as "sound in space". Scientifically wrong, but done for visual (or audio) effect. Ships not banking would look "wrong". For some reason.
Although, thinking about it, the ships didn't really bank in STII, did they? I know they were going more for "big battleships fighting" with that, which probably explains it. And STVI, where the ships were filmed with the same idea in mind, and where we definitely see a ship turn without banking (Chang watching the Enterprise-A on his viewscreen during the final battle).
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Objects moving in a vacuum look different than objects moving in an atmosphere, but I'm not so sure it looks different enough to jar people out of the narrative. (Thus justifying it as a necessary dramatic convention.)
I mean, consider (horror!) Babylon 5.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The "banking" thing coud be the ship matching up it's x/y axis to meet an enemy ship at the same perspective (allowing for more effective firepower?) or just a gradual course correction while at impulse.
It's also possible that the "banking" is deliberate so an enemy's weapons have a harder time locking onto key point son your hull. Kinda to spread out damage.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Objects moving in a vacuum look different than objects moving in an atmosphere, but I'm not so sure it looks different enough to jar people out of the narrative. (Thus justifying it as a necessary dramatic convention.)
I mean, consider (horror!) Babylon 5.
Amen.
That said, there was that OpenGL freeware game that was floating around recently, and it let you try to fly a Starfury. Emphasis on the "let". Perhaps I'm too old, but I simply couldn't master the "inertia" mode after all those years of TIE Fighter/X-Wing and whatnot, it was too much of a mind flip.
Stupid brain.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Bleh. I just like 2001-style physics and flight models in my games and shows. Is that so wrong, eh? EH? *sobs*
Although I've Found Her WAS insanely difficult. At first. It got easier after being shot down seven billion times.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't normally get all angry and stuff at cancelled projects, but I really would have liked to have seen "Into The Fire" get made. It was looking very promising, and proper physics on a space fighter game had never been done. The closest was Independence War, but that was a capital ship. And they gave you a load of aids and simplified the system for I-War 2.
And giving the game a quote from a comic does not impress me. Well, maybe a little.
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: The "banking" thing coud be the ship matching up it's x/y axis to meet an enemy ship at the same perspective (allowing for more effective firepower?) or just a gradual course correction while at impulse.
It's also possible that the "banking" is deliberate so an enemy's weapons have a harder time locking onto key point son your hull. Kinda to spread out damage.
But banking is mostly an undesired effect during a turn, product of the way control surfaces on airplanes work. While banking, you may momentarily lose sight of an enemy, which can be lethal... A spaceship, OTOH, doesn't NEED to bank, since it can turn around a single axis (without leaving the plane) using position thrusters, and in doing so, would keep sight of an enemy during the whole turn (of course, if they're flying on "sensors", that point is moot). It seems to me that the only way a spaceship could bank would be if it simultaneously applied thrusters on the side of the prow and the bottom of the same flank, then in the middle of the turn it applied the opposite flank's thrusters... not a very efficient maneuver. Oh, and of course, first the ship should use braking thrusters, regardless of whether it intends to "bank" or not.
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Although, thinking about it, the ships didn't really bank in STII, did they? I know they were going more for "big battleships fighting" with that, which probably explains it. And STVI, where the ships were filmed with the same idea in mind, and where we definitely see a ship turn without banking (Chang watching the Enterprise-A on his viewscreen during the final battle).
That wasn't a turn. It was a BOP POV shot of the Enterprise as Chang circled her. Apparently the unedited version of the shot was a much longer shot than we saw in the film, going about 180 degrees around.
And there is some banking in TWOK. When Kirk orders "hard a starboard" the ship leans way over as she turns away.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
The way TFS and TNG ships are built, it IMHO makes sense to bank while turning away from the enemy. When one banks, one brings more of the phaser turrets (or a greater length of the phaser strip) to bear, since these weapons are curiously placed on the upper and lower saucer surfaces.
In fact, it would make sense for the ships to fly belly-first or back-first a lot whenever in impulse combat...
Of course, it would be even more sensible if ships were shown firing more than one emitter pair (or more than one stretch of a strip) at a time! When we finally get a two-beam scene in DS9, it's when the Galaxy in question is NOT banking at all.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
"Conundrum"
Mark
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
Yes, I too would have liked to have seen a Galaxy Class in a barrel roll shooting from ventral and dorsal phasers in a Rambo-esque scene of destruction and carnage during the Dominion War...
le sigh...
Posted by machf (Member # 1233) on :
quote:Originally posted by Timo: The way TFS and TNG ships are built, it IMHO makes sense to bank while turning away from the enemy. When one banks, one brings more of the phaser turrets (or a greater length of the phaser strip) to bear, since these weapons are curiously placed on the upper and lower saucer surfaces.
In fact, it would make sense for the ships to fly belly-first or back-first a lot whenever in impulse combat...
The problem with that is that, in doing so, they are also exposing a larger area to the enemy... Of course, that means that Starfleet's is a bad design, placing the weapons on the upper and lower surfaces instead of in the front and back. Take a look at naval warfare: in the ancient times (when guns were first introduced, I mean - I won't get into ramming maneuvres, catapults, Greek fire, archers firing from towers, etc.), ships had to turn sideways to fire their cannons at the enemy in a single broadside, then maneuver so that they would present the other side to the enemy and fire again while the first side was reloading. Then someone came up with the idea of rotating turrets, and the ships didn't have to present their sides to the enemy to fire anymore, instead they just rotated their turrets in the proper direction. Notice that the main turrets were positioned at the front and rear of the ships (with some exceptions), while AA guns were later added mainly to the sides to defend from possible attacks by torpedo planes (which have a better chance of hitting a ship on its flanks). And ships would often attempt to present the smallest area to enemy ships.
Of course, it would be even more sensible if ships were shown firing more than one emitter pair (or more than one stretch of a strip) at a time! When we finally get a two-beam scene in DS9, it's when the Galaxy in question is NOT banking at all.
Timo Saloniemi
I guess the strips idea came when they didn't want to add proper turrets but something more "exotic" to the ship designs, hence their behavior...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Of course, it would be even more sensible if ships were shown firing more than one emitter pair (or more than one stretch of a strip) at a time! When we finally get a two-beam scene in DS9, it's when the Galaxy in question is NOT banking at all.
You mean in "Sacrifice of Angels" when the galaxy hoses a Galor with twin beams from the same phaser strip at the same time? Love that shot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Well, there was that Voyager episode with the old fighters and the guys in cryo. Voyager was spraying out phaser fire pretty much in all directions...not that it mattered all that much in the end.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Not that Voyager mattered all that much in the end...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)