test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Windows on the floor?
annahmaria1
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
I don't think I have ever seen these types of windows on any of the Star Trek shows or movies
But many of the ships I buy that has a flat saucer bottom, the windows are placed on the floor.
It's not a big deal but I wonder why Cryptic placed windows like that.
The only flat saucer bottom that doesn't have windows in the game (to my knowledge) is the Intrepid class....which is a canon ship. All the Cryptic made ships all have the windows (and their ships are all kinda ugly IMO).
But many of the ships I buy that has a flat saucer bottom, the windows are placed on the floor.
It's not a big deal but I wonder why Cryptic placed windows like that.
The only flat saucer bottom that doesn't have windows in the game (to my knowledge) is the Intrepid class....which is a canon ship. All the Cryptic made ships all have the windows (and their ships are all kinda ugly IMO).
Post edited by annahmaria1 on
0
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
You usually see those with the gaudy touring boats that rips off senior citizens with over priced tickets.
Though it is a interesting point!
ah but those windows aren't on the floor. If you look closely they are positioned on the walls of the saucer or body. Very slanted but still on the walls.
Who says that gravity has to be the same orientation throughout the ship? In those areas the gravity could be at right angles compared to the bridge (for example).
Bleed Green and Gold
I agree with you regarding gravity but it still wouldn't make sense. That would mean the floor would be inside the ship running up and down from decks E to J (it would look like walls to us).
If anything had a part to play with gravity the bottom have would be the exact opposite as the upper half...not 50% opposite. For example, up would be down...down would be up. In this case, if we were to use your example, up would be sideways.
Plus, Starfleet has had gravity plating for at least 300 years now
The idea that we have different orientations for gravity isn't realistic either. How does that work? Its up in the upper side of the saucer and also up for the under side, so the saucer has two roofs? Anyway, as I remember from those diagrams that were also in the shows and showed a cut through of the ship with all the decks, up was up and down was down, everywhere.
A lot of startrek ship design, original CBS and Cryptics doesn'make any sense. Take the warp core. It is a cylindrical object and it placed verical in a hull that has a cylindrical form. Makes sense, eh.
Sideways being up on that part of the ship was my point.
On Earth I agree that my suggestion would be silly but in space there is no up and down. The only up and down is one that would be applied by us and would very likely be different with any other ship we may encounter (the star trek bridge commander game seemed to show this very well).
Who's to say this couldn't also apply within a ship? The only trouble would be the transition from one way being up to a different orientation.
In the nx Enterprise there was a part of the ship which had very little gravity (no idea which episode that was) so, at least at that point in spaceship production, they were willing to be a bit more casual with that way gravity was handled in different areas of the ship.
Bleed Green and Gold
if i remember correctly in TNG the 10 forward was on the top row of those bottom windows..
the outside wall was slanted..
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ten_Forward
of course its just a tv set.. so the dimensions weren't correct.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
No it wouldn't, the deflector dish keeps dust and debris away from the ship. (That's what it's deflecting)
Ten Foraward was on the flat "rim" of the saucer, the outside walls on decks 10 and 11 were vertical.
The best idea ever invented for the enterprise was the battle bridge as that seemed to be more armoured and hidden rather than the saucer section bridge
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
i have to agree with this..
with viewscreens you wouldnt even need the bridge to be close to the outside of the ship.
yet on every model its right on top dead center.
[12:44] Vessel One of Two Unimatrix 01 deals 1019527 (1157678) Kinetic Damage to you with Plasma Energy Bolt Explosion.
But to answer another poster...10 Forward windows were not on the floor. 10 Forward's windows were right on the rim of the saucer and the front most windows. They were mounted on the walls with the slide curve on the top and bottom as the saucer began it's crescent on both top and bottom.
Starfleet bridges are designed as interchangeable modules, easily able to replaced to suit the mission at hand. If you placed it deep within the structure of the ship, you remove that ability.
NX-01 discovered the hard way as to why one should not place a command center top and center:
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120403132445/memoryalpha/en/images/8/87/NX01BridgeDestroyed.jpg
I understand theres a reason which is why they have auilary control and engineering and can control it from there if needed to. But to me it seems a big bullseye and one that Klingons or any enemy ship never seems to exploit
Vice Admiral Volmack ISS Thundermole
Brigadier General Jokag IKS Gorkan
Centurion Kares RRW Tomalak
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
AFAIK it's a throwback to real-world ships where the bridge is up high so the command crew can see the ship's deck.
My character Tsin'xing
Except that you don't use the Battle Bridge, except when the saucer is separated, in which case, the Battle Bridge is on top just like the normal Bridge.
You know that artificial gravity right? They're actually all roof windows, it's just that somewhere half way through the saucer section people start walking upside down...y'know...like Australia
I believe it was in the TNG tech manual, which again I believe is canon. It's also the reason why you see the bridge changed in Generations, and other variations of the Galaxy.
Also if the main bridge is taken out, I believe engineering is what takes over for bridge control.
I don't recall it being referenced directly in dialogue, however the Next Generation Technical Manual has an entire chapter dedicated to bridge design which makes frequent reference to the modularity of the design. Further, various production staff, including Okuda and I beleive Drexler have mentioned this as a fact, mainly to cover their asses when one observes that multiple starships of the same class seem to have different bridges (a lot of which are just the battle bridge redressed).
Also, it's on Memory Alpha... so semi-canon I suppose.
It is in the tech manual, I was just reading that the other day. As to it's "canonicity" that's debatable, as are many things. It was made by Okuda and co. to explain many of the things you see on screen and to try and fill in some of the gaps, and it also had the blessing of Gene Roddenberry (which the TOS tech manual didn't). However it was made part-way through the run of TNG and there were some things I noticed that were contradicted by later episodes and shows. So IMO like most books you could call it canon... as long as there's nothing on screen saying otherwise
As to the OP, there is one floor window already in game on the player starbase. It looks down and you see shuttles flying around the big ESD-style interior.
source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17602666/Star-Trek-TNG-Technical-Manual-182-Pages
Page 31.
Also with the size of the saucer section it maybe that natural light into the saucer section is far more important than risk to crew. It was designed as a multi role starship so it may be that being able to look out the bottom of the ship is a benefit.
There is that scene from voyager when janeway goes right down to the bottom of the ship and that scientist fellow has a tiny view port looking straight down out the bottom of the ship. It may serve no purpose than to provide moral support or at least something to look at instead of bulk heads all day.
Lets face it humans don't do well in cubicles which is why most office buildings are not faceless concrete blocks with cages for the workers
You are thinking modular between differant models like stero components when in the case of bridges the different bridges are modules for that specific saucer and each different model of saucer would have multiple bridge modules. This would allow changing a ships role by swapping out a bridge module within a day rather than swapping out everything on it in a week to a month. An aegis class destroyer today has it's own modules that can be swapped out for differant roles but those modules cannot be used on a differant class ship.
"I'm drunk, whats your excuse for being an idiot?" - Unknown drunk man. :eek: