I personally think the Eternal is a beauty. Why are you bringing up the Dyson vessels? Those aren't new. You might as well bring up ships like the Guardian and the Mat'Ha. The Kelvin ships shouldn't even be in the discussion.
I'll agree that the Dyson, Temporal ships and Intel ships don't look like TOS or TNG ships, but they are not supposed to. But there have been many other Federation ships like the Guardian that do.
I wouldn't judge the ships in STO so much. They server the purposes they were designed for. Most of them are just 'skins' anyway, so if you want a different ship - buy a different ship.
Now, have you seen the junk they're using in the trailer for the new Star Trek?! Now THAT'S something to ___ch about!
*points at the garbage called a ship on STDiscovery*
I appreciate allowing for diversity in the designs. The cosmetics don't affect the function of the ship apart from size constraints. My personal preferences are toward a more classic aesthetic which is why I liked the temporal ships so much. There was a design that "shipped" with each of the new vessels that might not have appealed to me but allowing older ship costumes or new interpretations of TOS styles to be selected made me very happy. Unlocking assets from from an existing collection of analogous classes or introduction of multiple interpretations of new ships would be pretty sweet.
Besides, the ships are okay in STO. It's not like they took the original first 3 films of a movie series, dropped them into a blender, poured them out with a girl instead of a guy as the main character, and called it a 'new' film (ie: StarWars in 2016 did exactly this, rehashing the original films, but giving the fans nothing original to see). If they'd done that with Star Trek, you'd have something to actually complain about! They didn't, so stop complaining! - oh. Wait. They did.
Any step away from the Federation Toiler Seat standard is a good one.
This is an awesome description of the new retro-throwback Temporal vessels. +1
It's not you- it's me. I just need my space.
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
"We" need no such thing. The gall OP to think you can speak for evèryone.
Well, since he's echoing my thoughts exactly, he certainly can say "WE" need some Star Trek in this "Star Trek" game.
aka, more Enterprise variants.
Not necessarily, just such that they use the Star Trek design features. I mean, many of the ships, such as the one in Odinforever's signature, don't look like they belong to Star Trek at all.
Personally, I prefer a round, TOS style saucer, but the design of Primary/Secondary hulls and warp nacelles on pylons is the general design, however they may be arranged.
This line of thought is hilarious, because that ship(Wells class) is NOT a cryptic creation.
I'm just saying I'd like to see more designs like the patrol escort, heavy cruiser, nova style science ships, etc. They use traditional design inspiration but look new and unique.
I, personally, like the variety that is given. Playing a game where all the ships look Constitution parts become boring to watch like the TOS section of Star Trek Legacy. I think the Yamato looks beautiful along with the Pathfinder and the Arbiter.
I, personally, like the variety that is given. Playing a game where all the ships look Constitution parts become boring to watch like the TOS section of Star Trek Legacy. I think the Yamato looks beautiful along with the Pathfinder and the Arbiter.
i agree with ya on that and each ship has a bit of a personality to it: the arbiter/avenger line are meant to be aggressive looking as well as bulky to take hits and keep on going, the pathfinder as an evolution of the intrepid design taking what science advancement Starfleet learned over time and refitted into a sturdy frame, the Yamato as a flagship with plenty of guns to back it but still staying true to its ancestor. Cryptic has done well when they design ships and I hope they continue the tradition with newer ships.
It wasn't long ago that I would have agreed with the OP. In fact, I'd take it even further- I don't really like any the ships designs post-TOS movies. They are either insanely large for no apparent reasons, or insanely small for again no apparent reason. And the designs themselves aren't interesting at all.
Some are almost acceptable, such as the Fed command battlecruisers. But still, huge for no real reason (except I think it's may be a a 'whose is bigger' contest with Star Wars).
Then they released AoY and the T6 TOS promo and now I basically finally have what I've always wanted out of this game. I just ignore everything else now days and fly for myself.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
Yeah I think the backlash against the Intel ships was an overreaction. I wonder if people would object so much now to an expansion of the line now that it's clear that they are their own thing rather than "the new Starfleet design direction" like many seemed to fear.
I would go with "vocal minority" rather than over reaction.
You can make any ship look awesome now! Even golfballs!
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
Yeah I think the backlash against the Intel ships was an overreaction. I wonder if people would object so much now to an expansion of the line now that it's clear that they are their own thing rather than "the new Starfleet design direction" like many seemed to fear.
I would go with "vocal minority" rather than over reaction.
You can make any ship look awesome now! Even golfballs!
I have yet to see evidence of that.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
and here *You* are, another cave man that's telling this cave man, 'Not rock! Stone!' anyway...I give you the "rock" as my idea is actually based on something in game already. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Aquarius_Light_Escort
and as for the Intel ships, this was their take on what that design would look like and as for your thought that it "would most likely mean something completely different", I point you back to your own analogy of the 'Cave Man' and ask how you could argue one way or the other? I just said I believed their design was what I would expect...and they are the ones that designed it....so it's their call.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Exactly...it's space, what reason would they have to spend time and resources making aerodynamic? They wouldn't, but for us, the reader/viewer/gamer, it makes perfect sense to show it and thereby define some sense of evolution. Otherwise, we all may as well just be big boxes...which happens to be what some would like to see in game as playable ships ironically.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space. I'm fairly certain we currently, nor had in the past, anything on a ship that did that. The fact that it is a parabolic design was merely cosmetic and lost in later designs where they are all shapes and sizes, including flat.
and as for the last comment...really? That's what you are going to argue? Semantics of stated opinions? Okay. /rolleyes
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space.
Any actual quote from TOS that appeared on screen about that? I actually curious because I don't think there is. Just like there are very few quotes about anything technical.
The Making of Star Trek stated this was done on purpose. A New York street cop wouldn't explain how his revolver (still in use by the NYPD at that time I believe) worked before he drew down on a bad guy. He just drew down on the bad guy. This was how Star Trek was suppose to be shown, like the cop show- all the details either left undefined or hidden behind the curtain because no one in the setting would take to time to explain something everyone already knew.
Latter off screen works and fans started trying to define things in more detail. And we ended up with solving story arcs instead of action and character decisions.
This was nothing but bad and in the end all that detail is meaningless. Everything is what is for what you're watching at the time. Subject to change at the next writer's whim. Nothing more, nothing less.
So the Enterprise had it's parabolic dish that did something unimportant to the story at hand except it was something that always appeared on the ship. One assumes it was needed.
And in STO, pilot ships are thick and wide. One assumes that they need to be that.
And we as customers can say we don't like the look, or that we do.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space.
Any actual quote from TOS that appeared on screen about that? I actually curious because I don't think there is. Just like there are very few quotes about anything technical.
The Making of Star Trek stated this was done on purpose. A New York street cop wouldn't explain how his revolver (still in use by the NYPD at that time I believe) worked before he drew down on a bad guy. He just drew down on the bad guy. This was how Star Trek was suppose to be shown, like the cop show- all the details either left undefined or hidden behind the curtain because no one in the setting would take to time to explain something everyone already knew.
Latter off screen works and fans started trying to define things in more detail. And we ended up with solving story arcs instead of action and character decisions.
This was nothing but bad and in the end all that detail is meaningless. Everything is what is for what you're watching at the time. Subject to change at the next writer's whim. Nothing more, nothing less.
So the Enterprise had it's parabolic dish that did something unimportant to the story at hand except it was something that always appeared on the ship. One assumes it was needed.
And in STO, pilot ships are thick and wide. One assumes that they need to be that.
And we as customers can say we don't like the look, or that we do.
and before you point out that it's not stated on screen and is therefor not cannon....it is supported by ST materials, which is far more than your stance that the lack of anything somehow proves it possible....which is a weak argument at best.
edit: also, evidence is in the TV shows that support it as a deflector dish and while shows used it for many purposes, a sensor package, they did not.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
Yeah I think the backlash against the Intel ships was an overreaction. I wonder if people would object so much now to an expansion of the line now that it's clear that they are their own thing rather than "the new Starfleet design direction" like many seemed to fear.
I would go with "vocal minority" rather than over reaction.
You can make any ship look awesome now! Even golfballs!
I have yet to see evidence of that.
Well if you don't like that look for the golfball what do you think would make it better? See, I personally think that look is awesome, but clearly you disagree.
Not a fan of some of the cryptic designs. The Intel ship's were all pretty terrible. The temporal ships were pretty bad well. I personally don't like the flat pancake look. On the other hand the pilot escorts and command cruisers weren't too bad at least on the fedside.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space.
Any actual quote from TOS that appeared on screen about that? I actually curious because I don't think there is. Just like there are very few quotes about anything technical.
The Making of Star Trek stated this was done on purpose. A New York street cop wouldn't explain how his revolver (still in use by the NYPD at that time I believe) worked before he drew down on a bad guy. He just drew down on the bad guy. This was how Star Trek was suppose to be shown, like the cop show- all the details either left undefined or hidden behind the curtain because no one in the setting would take to time to explain something everyone already knew.
Latter off screen works and fans started trying to define things in more detail. And we ended up with solving story arcs instead of action and character decisions.
This was nothing but bad and in the end all that detail is meaningless. Everything is what is for what you're watching at the time. Subject to change at the next writer's whim. Nothing more, nothing less.
So the Enterprise had it's parabolic dish that did something unimportant to the story at hand except it was something that always appeared on the ship. One assumes it was needed.
And in STO, pilot ships are thick and wide. One assumes that they need to be that.
And we as customers can say we don't like the look, or that we do.
and as for the last comment...really? That's what you are going to argue? Semantics of stated opinions? Okay. /rolleyes
How you state opinions is important. The words you select determine if you're asserting a fact or just stating an artistic opinion.
You have no facts, just artistic opinion. Please state them that way.
They were. I can't control how you took them. That is quite frankly, your problem and not mine.
You are reasonable for what you write, not I. Learn to write clearly, expressing your meaning, and don't hide behind the excuse that the reader must first read your mind to understand your intent.
If that simply truth is beyond you, I have nothing more to say to you.
Comments
aka, more Enterprise variants.
My thoughts exactly.
Now, have you seen the junk they're using in the trailer for the new Star Trek?! Now THAT'S something to ___ch about!
*points at the garbage called a ship on STDiscovery*
This is an awesome description of the new retro-throwback Temporal vessels. +1
Being critical doesn't take skill. Being constructively critical- which is providing alternative solutions or suggestions to a demonstrated problem, however, does.
My character Tsin'xing
i agree with ya on that and each ship has a bit of a personality to it: the arbiter/avenger line are meant to be aggressive looking as well as bulky to take hits and keep on going, the pathfinder as an evolution of the intrepid design taking what science advancement Starfleet learned over time and refitted into a sturdy frame, the Yamato as a flagship with plenty of guns to back it but still staying true to its ancestor. Cryptic has done well when they design ships and I hope they continue the tradition with newer ships.
Some are almost acceptable, such as the Fed command battlecruisers. But still, huge for no real reason (except I think it's may be a a 'whose is bigger' contest with Star Wars).
Then they released AoY and the T6 TOS promo and now I basically finally have what I've always wanted out of this game. I just ignore everything else now days and fly for myself.
The Intel ships were actually spot on. Consider what the new Navy ships that are designed for stealth look like...the Intel ship hold to that change.
The Pilot Escorts were too bulky....way too thick and wide. Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels.
You can make any ship look awesome now! Even golfballs!
My character Tsin'xing
I wouldn't consider something that used the look of 300 year old technology as "Spot On". The technology modern navy ships stealth designs are meant to defeat after all was primitive tech that a TOS Connie was already immune to under normal conditions.
Using that 'stealth' look is exactly the same as 1950 era movies putting wings and fins on their rockets. To make something look recognizable to an audience that didn't know better.
'Stealth' for Star Trek era would most likely mean something completely different- and have a completely different look *if* it had any look at all.
This too is something no one knows anything about. The ships are fiction, the drives (both warp and impulse) are fiction. Their operating methods, limits, and means unknown.
Perhaps thick and wide is a requirement for this type of ship. *You* are a cave man trying to tell John Moses Browning how to design the 1911, and all you have is 'throw rock, real fast, grunt' to say.
and wouldn't the wells ship have appeared with Daniels when he kidnapped Archer during the Enterprise series?
The original Enterprise as an extremely futuristic design that was different from most we've seen in science fiction at the time.
But it still has that satellite dish in its engineering section.
We use visual concepts of our current age all the time to influence the design of Star Trek ships. The way the Sovereign appears to be "sleek" or "fast" is using modern design sensibilities that would probably have f*ck-all with the reasons a ship would be fast in the 24th century.
Ultimately, Star Trek is aimed at its contemporary viewership and is supposed to evoke associations we would have, not some fictional 24th or 25th century humanoid might have when he thinks of space ships.
and here *You* are, another cave man that's telling this cave man, 'Not rock! Stone!' anyway...I give you the "rock" as my idea is actually based on something in game already. http://sto.gamepedia.com/Aquarius_Light_Escort
and as for the Intel ships, this was their take on what that design would look like and as for your thought that it "would most likely mean something completely different", I point you back to your own analogy of the 'Cave Man' and ask how you could argue one way or the other? I just said I believed their design was what I would expect...and they are the ones that designed it....so it's their call.
Exactly...it's space, what reason would they have to spend time and resources making aerodynamic? They wouldn't, but for us, the reader/viewer/gamer, it makes perfect sense to show it and thereby define some sense of evolution. Otherwise, we all may as well just be big boxes...which happens to be what some would like to see in game as playable ships ironically.
My character Tsin'xing
Not satellite dish, those would be mostly unknown to the audience of the time. More like a radar dish used in the DEW line (a common film image of the era, here's a example I found for you although they're a bit worse for the wear these days- http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/7469243.jpg).
And I seriously doubt anyone at the time called it a cool ship because "it has a radar dish like a modern navy ship" (which it doesn't).
Some forms in technology never change, and the Parabolic reflector is one. First appearing in the 18th century it has remaining in roughly the same form every since from early telescopes to advanced radar. It's use in the TOS could be a hat tip to the concept that some things age well and while nothing else about the Enterprise made sense for that era's technology (or ours)- that dish did.
But you are right- much of sci-fi are visual concepts for an audience that doesn't know better. We can and should know better. Instead of saying something that has no basis at all in either fact or fiction like "Were they about half as thick and half as wide...they would have been a bit more believable as highly mobile and maneuverable vessels" , one should say- I think they'd look better if they were thinner and narrower and call it good.
Uhm..yeah...about that....
The "dish" on the front is a deflector...it deflected stuff out of the way of the ship as it traveled through space. I'm fairly certain we currently, nor had in the past, anything on a ship that did that. The fact that it is a parabolic design was merely cosmetic and lost in later designs where they are all shapes and sizes, including flat.
and as for the last comment...really? That's what you are going to argue? Semantics of stated opinions? Okay. /rolleyes
Any actual quote from TOS that appeared on screen about that? I actually curious because I don't think there is. Just like there are very few quotes about anything technical.
The Making of Star Trek stated this was done on purpose. A New York street cop wouldn't explain how his revolver (still in use by the NYPD at that time I believe) worked before he drew down on a bad guy. He just drew down on the bad guy. This was how Star Trek was suppose to be shown, like the cop show- all the details either left undefined or hidden behind the curtain because no one in the setting would take to time to explain something everyone already knew.
Latter off screen works and fans started trying to define things in more detail. And we ended up with solving story arcs instead of action and character decisions.
This was nothing but bad and in the end all that detail is meaningless. Everything is what is for what you're watching at the time. Subject to change at the next writer's whim. Nothing more, nothing less.
So the Enterprise had it's parabolic dish that did something unimportant to the story at hand except it was something that always appeared on the ship. One assumes it was needed.
And in STO, pilot ships are thick and wide. One assumes that they need to be that.
And we as customers can say we don't like the look, or that we do.
And that is all there is to it.
How you state opinions is important. The words you select determine if you're asserting a fact or just stating an artistic opinion.
You have no facts, just artistic opinion. Please state them that way.
They were. I can't control how you took them. That is quite frankly, your problem and not mine.
As for the Deflector dish that you rambled on about... http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Navigational_deflector
and before you point out that it's not stated on screen and is therefor not cannon....it is supported by ST materials, which is far more than your stance that the lack of anything somehow proves it possible....which is a weak argument at best.
edit: also, evidence is in the TV shows that support it as a deflector dish and while shows used it for many purposes, a sensor package, they did not.
My character Tsin'xing
You are reasonable for what you write, not I. Learn to write clearly, expressing your meaning, and don't hide behind the excuse that the reader must first read your mind to understand your intent.
If that simply truth is beyond you, I have nothing more to say to you.
I asked specifically for something on screen TOS. This isn't that, I care nor more about it than I do your inability to clearly write your thoughts.
Thank you for your time.