-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
That is sort of my point, however, Tim. I'm just trying to point out that Voyager featured a more compact bridge in terms of features than the Enterprise D, but not one so compact as that of the Enterprise Naught.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
In my opinion, there should be two forward helm stations. There's no real logic to why I should feel this way, I just do. Even if it had been the Tactical station up there next to the helm. ENT fans can discount my opinion as mere Berman-hating if they wish, but I just feel that the main reasons there's only one station are a) the resulting need for two cast members - which could be corrected by just putting one of the other main-castmember bridge stations up front; and b) design laziness: appealing to those more familiar with the Defiant and Voyager bridges.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
true, the cost of an extra or actor to sit in that seat on the 1701 and the 1701-D did seem to get cumbersome (after Wesley and Ro left, it even got a little violent.. the producers were so pissed at constantly having to pay an extra that they routinely gruesomely killed that person during the course of the show)
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
If the design of the bridge was intended to catch the interest of casual fans, that would seem to be an argument for a dual forward console, not against it. I rather doubt the bridge of the Defiant takes up much space in the memory of the general audience.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, VP . . . if for no other reason than the fact that Archer has to look around Travis to see anything nifty on the viewscreen, as suggested by Mim's scans of bridge pics.
If I were captain, I'd either have the guy move or replace him with the descendants of horse-racing jockeys.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
The design philosophies of Trek bridges differ a lot despite the surface similarities. In "modern" bridges, it seems to be important that everybody sees the viewer and/or the captain. In TOS, people concentrated more on their consoles, and the captain had this swiveling chair so that HE could see everybody ELSE.
Which makes more sense? Everybody facing front and gaping at the viewscreen means they aren't concentrating on their own, presumably important consoles. OTOH, if they all face away from the captain, then he mostly gets to speak to their necks, and cannot deliver any nonverbal cues.
If people face every which way in a maneuvering starship, they get motion sickness (at least until somebody finally invents an inertial dampener that actually works right). If they face front, they get dangerous "tunnel vision" complacency in a demanding 3D environment.
Perhaps the Jem'Hadar had the right idea. People standing every which way and wearing VR goggles when needed would have a good grip of the 3D situation. Info feed wouldn't depend on where they faced. Just add some seats and seatbelts (which the ship in "The Ship" seemed to have, before Starfleet for some reason removed them) and you get good functionality.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
