posted
FASA had the rights to Trek for a few years and I think their liscence ended and was not renewed (for whatever reason) during TNG's second season. Some FASA designs are canon ad they appear onscreen as data searches the computer files during Contagen. The designs shown were of the Orion blockade runner and the "Lotus Flower" Neutronium fuel hauler (their design for the Kobayshi Maru).
Of all the gaming designs, FASA has the best and most plausable ship designs and the best rendered illustrations.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Star Fleet Battles (different from FASA) was never licensed by or associated with Paramount. They held a license to produce materials based on Franz Joseph's work. (To which he, not Paramount, held the copyright.) However, they could never use the name Star Trek or any other elements than those appearing in said FJ works.
However, I believe, SFB ended up becoming the basis basis for the Star Trek: Starfleet Command computer games. Not sure what the deal was there---probably an agreement between the SFB guys and Paramount for the sake of profit by both. But all the FJ elements were removed or redesigned for that incarnation. (Whether this was because his estsate refused permission to use his designs to Paramount or Paramount simply didn't want to use them, I don't know.)
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Since I saw the Starfleet Battles Gorn ships. Holy fuck, those are awful.
The FASA stuff at least tried to get away from the "sensor and blob plus naceles" formula that haunts most designs.
FASA ships are mainly from the TMP-STVI era whereas the SFB stuff is all TOS (that i've seen anyway).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
SFB is all TOS beacuse when Paramount and the publishers of SFB finally sorted things out in the early 80s it was agreed that SFB could use anything from TOS and TAS except the name Star Trek and the actual characters. So ships, races, events, etc. are all okay. But not Kirk, Spock, etc.
Anything from TMP onwards is forbidden which is why the SFB universe has taken a very different direction. But some small homages have been paid (some of the heavy cruisers received a refit that moved the torp tubes to the base of the connecting dorsal, even though they're still otherwise TOS designs).
When SFB wa sconverted the the SFC computer game the visual appearance of everything was changed but all the underlying stats are otherwise exactly the same as in the board game. This produces some odd contrasts when you actually stop and think about what a ship is supposed to be.
Frankly, I hate most of the SFB ship designs. The Federation and Klingon stuff is okay, but the other races are fairly horrible.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Star Fleet Battles (different from FASA) was never licensed by or associated with Paramount. They held a license to produce materials based on Franz Joseph's work. (To which he, not Paramount, held the copyright.) However, they could never use the name Star Trek or any other elements than those appearing in said FJ works.
However, I believe, SFB ended up becoming the basis basis for the Star Trek: Starfleet Command computer games. Not sure what the deal was there---probably an agreement between the SFB guys and Paramount for the sake of profit by both. But all the FJ elements were removed or redesigned for that incarnation. (Whether this was because his estsate refused permission to use his designs to Paramount or Paramount simply didn't want to use them, I don't know.)
-MMoM
so SFB is the cause of the rift between G & F? how far off from SFB is the current computer games? gradual from SFC-1 to 3 as it seems...or more drastic (as was the evolution of actvision's mechwarrior 2, microprose's MW3, and the the current MW-4 by microslut)? did FASA's game have any inpact on the computer games? Armada?
posted
I dont think any FASA stuff even made the videogame scene but their design elements sure seem to crop up now and again. See the TOS era Loknar to get my meaning. Here's a site with many of the FASA designs and some great commentary: http://www.sub-odeon.com/stsstcsmua/
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: so SFB is the cause of the rift between G & F?
No, not at all. The issues between Paramount and ADB (the writers of SFB) have nothing to do with the issues between GR and FJ. For one thing Paramount and ADB managed to reach an amicable solution...
Hmm, www.trekplace.com seems to be down but they have the best resources on FJ's work and history with GR.
quote:how far off from SFB is the current computer games? gradual from SFC-1 to 3 as it seems...or more drastic (as was the evolution of actvision's mechwarrior 2, microprose's MW3, and the the current MW-4 by microslut)?
I only have SFC 1, and apart from cosmetic differences (i.e. all the ships look totally different) and the lack of the some of the races (Kzinti, Tholians, ISC being the main ones) there's no difference at all. As far as I can tell without owning or even playing them SFC 2 and 3 are indeed more different.
quote:did FASA's game have any inpact on the computer games? Armada?
No.
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:...Also, the TM passage does not state that single and multiple nacelle ships are worthless; it simply states that the dual nacelle design is optimal for power generation and vehicle control. There may very well be applications where an odd number of nacelles may be more practical, but these would not normally apply to long-term, day to day operations.
I was hoping someone would mention this. It may be that a three nacelle design requires quite a bit more power generation for a marginal increase in speed or manuverability, but certain situations or mission profiles may require the addition of the third nacelle at the expense of energy.
It is alot like APO telescope apertures. A 1" increase in objective diameter can cost thousands of dollars for a slight performance increase.
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Pretty much. The technbabbly explanaions that make the most sense to me run along the lines of:
Warp engine nacelles are typically mounted in pairs, as warp-speed maneuvering is accomplished by producing an asymmetry in the field. This is most easily accomplished when you have more than one set of field coils.
Single-nacelled vessels tend to be Scouts, Destroyers, Clippers, or Escorts. Ships whose missions usually require them to go straight out to an area of space and do most of their work sublight before returning (or travelling to another destination) in another straight line. It is possible to distort the warp field with a single set of coils, but it is much more energy intensive to do so.
Triple-nacelled ships, on the other hand, benefit from both increased maneuverability and a measure of redundancy should one or even two nacellles be damaged or destroyed. Additionally, such vessels tend to be able to power higher-energy shipboard systems than dual-nacelled ships of comparable mass due to the ~33% increase in warp plasma produced by the engine core. These benefits, however, are only of any real practical value in a dedicated large warship. Given that, in the two centuries of the Federation's existence, it has faced only three adversaries powerful and hostile enough to warrant the design and construction of purpose-built triple-nacelled ship classes.
As always, an existing dual-nacelled design can be modified in drydock to another engine nacellle arrangement depending on projected long-term mission needs. This is not as efficient as creating a class whose warp dynamics and power generation systemry was intended from inception to power one or three (or four) nacelles, but it comfortably fills the middle road -- where the mission needs warrant such a vessel, but not to the point of creating an all-new class.
Similarly, ships with odd numbers of nacelles can be refitted into dual-nacelled vessels, but with their own set of difficulties arising from the conversion.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
I think of it like screws (propellers)on boat. One screw allows forturning in a wide arc (with the help of a rudder). Two screws allows for greater manuverability and a tighter degree of handling. Three is redundant, but you'd be happy to have the extra one if you were far from support or needed to maintain high speeds for a long duration.
The third nacelle may allow for greater duration at high wrp by decreasing the nacelle's workload but would add several thousand tons to te ship and that could lead to less manuverability at sublight (where youd really need to manuver in combat).
The strange thing is, I've thought a lot on this lately as I've just completed a model of a single nacelled scout update for the First Contact class o' new designs: the ship has kind of two nacelles blended into one (two Bussard collectors but one cylindrical body like on a Galaxy's nacelle). I'll post pics tomorrow, I guess.
Point being, by TNG's era, there should be scouts (like the Freedom class) that perform as well as older cruisers (like the Ambassador) but with much less mass and fewer requirments.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The situation I had been thinking of was the question of stability in aircraft design. You'd want a passenger plane to be inherently stable to give it the tendency to return to straight and level flight after a maneuver.
On the other hand, you design a fighter with an inherent instability. That gives you the maneuverability and quick response for combat, but it comes with the proviso that if you get yourself into a high-g maneuver, you better get that plane back to level flight before you black out. Otherwise, you're in a very expensive lawn dart.
-------------------- The difference between genius and idiocy? Genius has its limits.
Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Some FASA designs are canon ad they appear onscreen as data searches the computer files during Contagen.
Don't be silly. They are no more canon than the idea that a parrot is commander in chief of Starfleet.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: They are no more canon than the idea that a parrot is commander in chief of Starfleet.
But that explains so much...
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What about the three-nacelle Enterprise, seen in ALL GOOD THINGS? while the Warp-14 thing doesn't jive with cannon, it says that the ship was faster then before and the huge mega-phasor cannon also hinted at more power. Perhaps most ships can't produce enough power to make a third nacelle efficient?
-------------------- joH'a' 'oH wIj DevwI' jIH DIchDaq Hutlh pagh (some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps in the morning) The Woozle!
Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
