test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So a T-6 Galaxy Dreadnought is coming. Can Cryptic please listen to Andrew Probert's opinion?

135

Comments

  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles

    unless that top bit is a storage container and not a nacelle

    and the only two single-nacelle vessels in starfleet that i know of are the hermes class and the saladin class​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles​​

    No it only has one. The protrusion on the topside of the saucer is the Kelvin's Engineering section.
    See?
    kelvin_wall06_1680.jpg
    Star_Trek_Kelvin_2013_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_1920.jpg
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    farmallm wrote: »
    To me I love the 3rd nacelle and bridge mounts. As its part of the actual ship. To me the ship shows as one not to be messed with. And makes an excellent Command ship of any Fleet.

    I'm like the others, you want a regular Galaxy. Go fly one, and leave the Dread alone. I still have one character slot left, I even had thoughts of making it a future Galaxy Dread Capt.

    I think they should add the Federation Class to STO!
    http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_class

    Actually, thanks to the nacelle set up of the Prometheus, the third nacelle arrangement of the old FJ Dreadnought is now "Non-Alternate-Timeline" canon.
    It's attachment to the primary hull mirrors the way the Prometheus' center nacelle was attached, it's just a lot bigger and doesn't retract.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles​​

    No it only has one. The protrusion on the topside of the saucer is the Kelvin's Engineering section.
    See?
    kelvin_wall06_1680.jpg
    Star_Trek_Kelvin_2013_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_1920.jpg

    Technically, that is actually NOT an Engineering section, It's just a Secondary Hull.
    The Engineering part of the Kelvin starts at the bottom of the Secondary Hull Connection (just behind the Impulse Engines) and runs downward into the WARP Engine.
    I've not seen an interior schematic of that part of the ship, but I would imagine that there is a large part of the nacelle that is somewhat habitable and is mainly were we would see the intermix chamber.
    The Secondary Hull is probably 90% made up of the Shuttle bay and associated shuttle operations.
    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles​​

    No it only has one. The protrusion on the topside of the saucer is the Kelvin's Engineering section.
    See?
    kelvin_wall06_1680.jpg
    Star_Trek_Kelvin_2013_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_1920.jpg

    Technically, that is actually NOT an Engineering section, It's just a Secondary Hull.
    The Engineering part of the Kelvin starts at the bottom of the Secondary Hull Connection (just behind the Impulse Engines) and runs downward into the WARP Engine.
    I've not seen an interior schematic of that part of the ship, but I would imagine that there is a large part of it that is habitable and is mainly were we would see the intermix chamber.
    B)

    If you..... haven't seen any interior schematics of it, then you're simply just speculating, aren't you?
    I mean, yes, it's a Secondary Hull. But mostly, when we see Secondary Hulls in starships in ST, they tend to have a significant part of their interior space devoted to the engineering sections that house and maintain the internal power and propulsion systems.
    And also, I know this is speculation on my part as well, but I have precedent to back me up, usually on starships that have large saucer sections like the Kelvin, have the saucers house the habitable areas, since they are usually much, much larger than the Secondary Hulls (which, again, are usually devoted to engineering systems).
    I mean, you're not even wrong either, is what I'm saying. That IS technically a Secondary Hull. But I'm also pretty sure that it functions as an Engineering Section as well.
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »
    sorceror01 wrote: »
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles​​

    No it only has one. The protrusion on the topside of the saucer is the Kelvin's Engineering section.
    See?
    kelvin_wall06_1680.jpg
    Star_Trek_Kelvin_2013_freecomputerdesktopwallpaper_1920.jpg

    Technically, that is actually NOT an Engineering section, It's just a Secondary Hull.
    The Engineering part of the Kelvin starts at the bottom of the Secondary Hull Connection (just behind the Impulse Engines) and runs downward into the WARP Engine.
    I've not seen an interior schematic of that part of the ship, but I would imagine that there is a large part of it that is habitable and is mainly were we would see the intermix chamber.
    B)

    If you..... haven't seen any interior schematics of it, then you're simply just speculating, aren't you?
    I mean, yes, it's a Secondary Hull. But mostly, when we see Secondary Hulls in starships in ST, they tend to have a significant part of their interior space devoted to the engineering sections that house and maintain the internal power and propulsion systems.
    And also, I know this is speculation on my part as well, but I have precedent to back me up, usually on starships that have large saucer sections like the Kelvin, have the saucers house the habitable areas, since they are usually much, much larger than the Secondary Hulls (which, again, are usually devoted to engineering systems).
    I mean, you're not even wrong either, is what I'm saying. That IS technically a Secondary Hull. But I'm also pretty sure that it functions as an Engineering Section as well.

    There's no logical reason for the Secondary Hull to have any part of Engineering in it.
    One can deduce that that is most likely, since there is nothing to indicate any sort of Propulsion Equipment emanating from that section.
    Also, just from what we saw in the movie, it's pretty obvious that well over 3/4 of the secondary hull is taken up by Shuttle Operations and the front part is made up of the Deflector Dish and Deflector Control.
    There might be a power flow trunk emanating up from Engineering into it, but that would mostly just be to power that section.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • skyranger1414skyranger1414 Member Posts: 1,785 Arc User
    Because it's pretty clear.

    Can we have the visual option to remove all the fins, cannon mounts, extra torpedo launchers and 3rd nacelle? Can we please strip the damn thing down to just having the lance attached? The extra bits are worthless and fugly.

    How about... no.

    The Galaxy is the most boring, slow looking, space whale imaginable. I can´t really blame the designer as I´m sure it was all due to Rodenberry´s insistance that the Galaxy turned out that way. The Galaxy-X is the ONLY time we see the Galaxy model as something kinda cool and interesting. Its also the first and ONLY time we see the Galaxy class not be completely incompetent and be bested by the alien ship du jour. the extra bits like the fins and antennas make the Galaxy-X look like an aftermarket sport car kit, which is pretty much what it is. Beyond that, the third nacelle is a classic sign of a dreadnought in a Fed ship, as anyone familiar with the history of the trek gaming and books would know. I was beyond happy when they threw the Fed Dreadnoughts the nod when they added the third nacelle to the Galaxy-X, it showed beyond a doubt that this new version of the Enterprise was not a pushover.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    There's no logical reason for the Secondary Hull to have any part of Engineering in it.

    except, you know, the fact that on most of starfleet's ships, the secondary hull is where engineering is located and other names for the secondary hull are engineering hull and engineering section​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    daveyny wrote: »
    There's no logical reason for the Secondary Hull to have any part of Engineering in it.

    except, you know, the fact that on most of starfleet's ships, the secondary hull is where engineering is located and other names for the secondary hull are engineering hull and engineering section​​

    That is true for Trek up to Nemesis, but not assumable for JJ-Trek.
    It's a whole new ball game from 2009 on.
    Logically, it is probably called the Shuttle Operations Hull.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »
    There's no logical reason for the Secondary Hull to have any part of Engineering in it.

    except, you know, the fact that on most of starfleet's ships, the secondary hull is where engineering is located and other names for the secondary hull are engineering hull and engineering section

    That is true for Trek up to Nemesis, but not assumable for JJ-Trek.
    It's a whole new ball game from 2009 on.

    true enough, but you'd expect the warp core to be as close to the ship's nacelle(s) as possible, and the kelvin's is directly below the secondary hull

    (the nacelle, obviously; i have no idea where the warp core is located on the kelvin - for all i know, it could be in the part of the saucer where the nacelle and secondary hull meet)​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »
    There's no logical reason for the Secondary Hull to have any part of Engineering in it.

    except, you know, the fact that on most of starfleet's ships, the secondary hull is where engineering is located and other names for the secondary hull are engineering hull and engineering section

    That is true for Trek up to Nemesis, but not assumable for JJ-Trek.
    It's a whole new ball game from 2009 on.

    true enough, but you'd expect the warp core to be as close to the ship's nacelle(s) as possible, and the kelvin's is directly below the secondary hull​​

    Ummm... Yes, "as close as possible"...
    So why would it be Waaay Up Above, when there is more than ample room from just behind the Impulse Engines DOWNWARD into the Massive WARP Engine??
    Perhaps you haven't noticed the rather large protrusion on the primary hull just behind the impulse engines. That is most likely the actual engine room. Just as it was on both the Classic Enterprise and TMP Enterprise refit.
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited October 2015
    1 Nacelle: Saladin, Hermes, Freedom, Kelvin type.

    3 Nacelles: Niagara, Medusa, Gal-X, Armstrong type.

    4 Nacelles: Cheyenne, Constellation, 4-nacelled Excelsior study I, 4-nacelled Excelsior study II, Nebula prototype I, Nebula prototype II, New Orleans (depending on what the marker pens are)​, Prometheus.​​
    Post edited by artan42 on
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • sohtohsohtoh Member Posts: 620 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    1 Nacelle: Saladin, Hermes, Freedom, Kelvin type.

    3 Nacelles: Niagara, Medusa, Gal-X, Armstrong type.

    4 Nacelles: Cheyenne, Constellation, 4-nacelled Excelsior study I, 4-nacelled Excelsior study II, Nebula prototype I, Nebula prototype II, New Orleans.​​

    The New Orleans class only has two nacelles. The two rectangular objects on the saucer section are not nacelles. The Prometheus is a 4 nacelle ship though.


    "I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    sohtoh wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    1 Nacelle: Saladin, Hermes, Freedom, Kelvin type.

    3 Nacelles: Niagara, Medusa, Gal-X, Armstrong type.

    4 Nacelles: Cheyenne, Constellation, 4-nacelled Excelsior study I, 4-nacelled Excelsior study II, Nebula prototype I, Nebula prototype II, New Orleans.

    The New Orleans class only has two nacelles. The two rectangular objects on the saucer section are not nacelles. The Prometheus is a 4 nacelle ship though.


    They are made of the same marker pens used to make the nacelles on the Cheyenne and Springfield aren't they? I just assumed they were auxiliary nacelles like on the Nebula prototype.

    I edited in the Prometheus though.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • oldravenman3025oldravenman3025 Member Posts: 1,892 Arc User
    protogoth wrote: »
    I don't get it. I never hear complaints about ships with four nacelles. I never hear complaints about ships with one nacelle (the Kelvin in ST 2009 is the best known example, but I'm pretty sure I recall having seen a single-nacelled ship or two in some scene with an armada of Starfleet vessels in some episode or movie, just can't remember the specifics). What's with the hysteria over three nacelles? I always liked the three nacelles myself. I know about Roddenberry's "rule number one," but I think it's nonsense based on a purely aesthetic preference, while my own aesthetic preference is in favor of odd-numbered nacelles. And like someone already pointed out, Tholian ships have what appear to be three nacelles. Could the Galaxy-X nacelle placement be improved? Sure, but the answer is not scrapping the third nacelle entirely.

    the kelvin has 2 nacelles

    unless that top bit is a storage container and not a nacelle

    and the only two single-nacelle vessels in starfleet that i know of are the hermes class and the saladin class​​




    There is the Freedom Class from TNG (Wolf 359 graveyard scene).



    FreedomClass1_zpsarc3gr6d.jpg

    Freedom_new04-1-_zpsasojkqoj.jpg

    FreedomClass2_zpsimbewqj8.jpg
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    sohtoh wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    1 Nacelle: Saladin, Hermes, Freedom, Kelvin type.

    3 Nacelles: Niagara, Medusa, Gal-X, Armstrong type.

    4 Nacelles: Cheyenne, Constellation, 4-nacelled Excelsior study I, 4-nacelled Excelsior study II, Nebula prototype I, Nebula prototype II, New Orleans.​​

    The New Orleans class only has two nacelles. The two rectangular objects on the saucer section are not nacelles. The Prometheus is a 4 nacelle ship though.
    The Prometheus has 5 nacelles.
    You forgot the one that pops up from the Primary Hull.
    B)

    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    Yeah, which remains inactive until the ship undergoes MVAM.
    People seem to be pretty keen on glossing over that detail.

    Otherwise, normally, the Prometheus is a quad-nacelled design.

    You know what, I think I keep forgetting this, but doesn't it also have yet one more mini-nacelle that descends from the underside of the saucer during MVAM? I could have sworn it did. Lemme fire up the game....

    EDIT: Yeah, it does. So I guess technically, the Prometheus has a total of six nacelles; two are simply inactive when the ship is fully formed up.
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • sohtohsohtoh Member Posts: 620 Arc User
    Sorry, I counted the Prometheus as a four nacelle ship, as I didn't consider the MVAM.
    "I'm not big on telepaths myself. I'm not big on guns either. But if everyone else has them, I want to make sure I can get my hands on the biggest one I can."
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Member Posts: 1,042 Arc User
    sohtoh wrote: »
    Sorry, I counted the Prometheus as a four nacelle ship, as I didn't consider the MVAM.

    Technically, it still is. MVAM is an exotic ability of the ship, and that's the only time the extra nacelles come into play (which coincidentally, turn one quad-nacelle ship into three regular dual-nacelle ones).
    ".... you're gonna have a bad time."
  • This content has been removed.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edalgo wrote: »
    You realize people are arguing over JJ schematics?

    JJ also made the Enterprise larger than the Galaxy class and Dreadnought as large as a Borg cube.

    Something the vast majority has to write off and ignore as just plain wrong.

    No. The stupid large scales only exist in one scene, the first shuttlebay arrival. The Constitution is only slightly larger than it's PU counterpart.

    You realise changing scales for dramatic effect is nothing new right? DS9, Defiant, Jem Dreadnoughts So'na Collector, all variable depending on the scene.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • flash525flash525 Member Posts: 5,441 Arc User
    Paladin Class - One Nacelle (this, if I recall) was a TOS ship that they intended to use in the show itself, though cost of another model kept it out. If those rumors were true, then Roddenberry himself would have surely vouched for it?
    Constellation Class - Four Nacelles
    Freedom Class - One Nacelle
    Niagara Class - Three Nacelles
    Prometheus Class - Four Nacelles

    Kelvin Class - One Nacelle
    [insert ship name] - Three Nacelles (this refers to another ship seen in JJtrek that had three nacelles
    attachment.php?attachmentid=42556&d=1518094222
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    flash525 wrote: »
    Paladin Class - One Nacelle (this, if I recall) was a TOS ship that they intended to use in the show itself, though cost of another model kept it out. If those rumors were true, then Roddenberry himself would have surely vouched for it?
    Constellation Class - Four Nacelles
    Freedom Class - One Nacelle
    Niagara Class - Three Nacelles
    Prometheus Class - Four Nacelles

    Kelvin Class - One Nacelle
    [insert ship name] - Three Nacelles (this refers to another ship seen in JJtrek that had three nacelles

    I've already listed them, excluding the Paladin which is not canon.
    artan42 wrote: »
    1 Nacelle: Saladin, Hermes, Freedom, Kelvin type.

    3 Nacelles: Niagara, Medusa, Gal-X, Armstrong type.

    4 Nacelles: Cheyenne, Constellation, 4-nacelled Excelsior study I, 4-nacelled Excelsior study II, Nebula prototype I, Nebula prototype II, New Orleans (depending on what the marker pens are)​, Prometheus.
    ​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • orangeitisorangeitis Member Posts: 5,222 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    Good news
    This comment of yours makes zero sense. Take the Excelsior. You can remove the extra impulse engines, the nacelle fins and the chunky things that stick out either side of the deflector. You can even mix and match them.

    Did CBS have to be consulted for that? Do you need me to get some crayons to explain this basic point to you, or will you just eat them if I try?

    More than a bit hypocritical considering your response... such a comparison doesn't hold at all.

    The old style Excelsior was a proper canon design, as was the refit, which is why both are available in-game.

    A fin/third nacelle/whatever-less Galaxy-X is in no way canon. Only one form of this ship existed in canon, and it is that form that Cryptic have faithfully recreated in-game.
    Not only that, but the Excelsior and Excelsior Retrofit are both Advanced Heavy Cruisers. The Galaxy is an Exploration Cruiser and the Galaxy-X is a Dreadnought Cruiser. It isn't unprecedented to have ships of one type resembling ships of another(Guardian and Assault Warbirds to the vectors of the Advanced warbird), but it's pretty unreasonable considering the ship's vastly different playstyles.
  • leviathan99#2867 leviathan99 Member Posts: 7,747 Arc User
    edalgo wrote: »
    You realize people are arguing over JJ schematics?

    JJ also made the Enterprise larger than the Galaxy class and Dreadnought as large as a Borg cube.

    Something the vast majority has to write off and ignore as just plain wrong.

    The Kelvin predates the divergence and is considered canon for both universes.

    And the REASON the Enterprise was so big was because the Klingons and Federation spent 30 years completely reverse engineering the Narada, mastering late 24th century Romulan and Borg tech.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    And the REASON the Enterprise was so big was because the Klingons and Federation spent 30 years completely reverse engineering the Narada, mastering late 24th century Romulan and Borg tech.

    Uhm......what?!!? The Enterprise was already built before J.J.'s Starfleet even knew about Nero and the Narada.
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    edited October 2015
    shpoks wrote: »
    And the REASON the Enterprise was so big was because the Klingons and Federation spent 30 years completely reverse engineering the Narada, mastering late 24th century Romulan and Borg tech.

    Uhm......what?!!? The Enterprise was already built before J.J.'s Starfleet even knew about Nero and the Narada.

    no, it wasn't; the narada's point of entry was 2233 and the enterprise left earth for the mission to vulcan in 2258 and it had just come out of the iowa riverside yards​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    no, it wasn't; the narada's point of entry was 2233 and the enterprise left earth for the mission to vulcan in 2258 and it had just come out of the iowa riverside yards​​

    That's true, but I said it was build before they knew about Nero and the Narada.
    Up until the Enterprise encountered the Narada in orbit of Vulcan, Starfleet only knew about 'a mysterious ship, possibly Romulan' that attacked the Kelvin all those years ago. They couldn't have reverse engineered something they never captured, not in the first movie and not even in the second since both the Narada and the Jellyfish were destroyed at the end of ST:2009.
    Same goes for the Klingons, Uhura tapped into a transmission from Qo'noS which said that more of 40 Klingon ships were destroyed less than 48 before they encountered the Narada in orbit of Vulcan by 'an unknown ship'. It's pretty clear that neither Starfleet nor the KDF had any idea as to what the Narada was or who Nero was before Vulcan, much less the ships having larger sizes because they reverse engineered them.
    HQroeLu.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.