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.
and before you point out that it's not stated on screen and is therefor not cannon....
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.
I find it humorous that someone would try and relay the expectation of writing clearly and in that very post, break their own rule or is that not "reasonable" of me to expect...perhaps a Freudian slip on your part? I pointed out the spelling error as well, cause people that pull this kinda argument on a forum crack me up.
Anyway, that you specifically request TOS is your problem again. Setting your own defined constraints of evidence regarding matters you have no control of is foolhardy at best. The evidence is there. Your acceptance or lack thereof will keep no one awake tonight, I can assure you.
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
When I was younger, I hated Chinese, Japanese, and Indian food but I loved Pizza. Indian food especially was very different and not something that an American would typically eat. Later on, Indian food now has some of my favorite dishes. Lamb curry especially.
When I first saw the Intel ships, I thought the same thing. "God those look like awful Tron ships." But now, I enjoy their visuals the same as I do any other ship. The point is that just because something seems different at first doesn't mean that you won't eventually grow to appreciate it.
And even if I don't appreciate a particular ship, there are plenty of others that may in fact enjoy it. We don't like all the same things after all.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored 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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
I feel the same about the 31st C ships. The Intel line's appearances were to give the impression of stealth to a specialization that they were also releasing about that time, the Intel specialization. It's like how some ships look fast to give the viewer the idea that they are. In reality, yes, we could slap a cloaking device on a box and have "stealth" and we can slap a big rocket on a box and have "speed", but the designer was trying to show to us what they were for without using just their words, but in style as well. It did that....this doesn't mean we all have to like it or think it's cool, but I associate the design with modern stealth designs, which is clearly what the designer for the Intel ships had in mind...and for that, they achieved their goal.
I didn't care much for the Dyson or Intel ships myself, but I'm happy for those that enjoy them. As for the rest, I personally like them and see no reason for any change. There is a nice selection available at present IMO to suit many different tastes, as it should.
If only they had put all the 'alien' ships into their own faction.
Water under the bridge that. As is, and for the first time IMO- STO finally does have a good mix of what's available. But they'll need to run the 23rd century Promo again in the future to keep it that.
Oh wait, fans of the NX-01 are still out of luck... guess I'll have to take that back.
See, I like the compact bulkiness of the pilot escorts, especially the Ajax engineering variant. Almost a perfect ship right there imo.
I also really like the design of the chimera/manticore heavy destroyers, which a lot of people hate. Unfortunately I can't bring myself to spend 160$ on lts to get them.
My all time favorite ship design is probably the steamrunner, and it's a shame we can't get that one on consoles
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
The only thing that should take a little step back is maybe new ships, and redo some older ships that need a new coat of paint...like the Excelsior class, nebula, and Sovereign class......Also I want T6 Exeter class you know since TOS connies thing is now a reality...and the Connie Refit model needs a new coat of paint
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
If anything... My biggest nitpick be the nacelles.
Give me more options for more subdued nacelles. Such as Enterprise A/Miranda, Heavy Cruiser: Stargazer (there is a certain 50's nostalgia going on there), or even the Advanced Escort: Cerberus.
Yeah okay you got me, its not all black and white, there are many star trek flavors.
I was just sayin there are "Star Trek" ships that are heavily influenced by some sort of star trek design elements, then there are plenty of ships in this game (fed focus only) that completely jump the shark and defy those star trek design language and are very generic. A lot of people make the "Starships online" snark joke, and i see where that comes from.
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
Nicely ignored the fact that visual tracking a ship at any significant distance and/or speed in space would be all but impossible. After all, we're talking about ships capable of a significant chuck of C at impulse and much higher with warp engaged. Given that the link speaks of 'against long range sensors', visual tracking becomes even more troublesome.
But whatever. Picard ships must have had mighty telescopic with wind angle lens or something and/or the ship was traveling slow enough to be 'tracked' visually at 'long range'. Sure it would have taken decades or longer to get anywhere- but we're ok with that too.
Technobabble is best when it doesn't use real terms like 'visual'.
seriously the intel the 31st cent pancake ships get and what is with that romulan kelvin ship??? it looks like a chicken with no head seriously the romulan one needed to be flown backwards and it actually looks good try it you will see all of theses new one look like azz
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.
I agree about the ships, the only thing I would add, if I like the seating, console, weapons layout of one ship but like the design of another I own I would like to use its skin. Edit: let me add, I must own that ship with the skin to use it on another 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*
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
Why doesn't the ship look like a pancake?
In all seriousness though this is a much better example then the one from Enterprise as this ship isn't from a future time period. I have no problem with advanced construction materials and what not. I have a problem with making the ship look like it got ran over by a steamroller and thinking because of that it's "stealthy". The intel ships just didn't look like federation ships, but that's just my opinion so you can take that with a grain of salt.
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.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
Picard ran across just such a thing. A ship with armor plating that absorbed active sensor scans. Thus forcing the Enterprise to rely on visual observation of the craft to track it. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Baran's_mercenary_vessel
To each their own...I hate the Galaxy Class....but some reason people like that big headed small body freak
My reaction when it first came onto the screen back in '87 was, "Oh my god, they SD'd it!"
I've never been a fan of the TNG+ ship aesthetic, either, and the majority of STO's original designs haven't been much better.
Same here.
Because of the low nacelles, I immediately labeled it a backward flying toilet seat and have thought of it that way ever since. Add to this that in it's very first appearance when its Captain is going show Q what a "Galaxy Class Starship can do"... it *runs away*. And then fails at that.
That was an epic failure of story-telling craft. In Star Trek the ship should be a character in itself, and it's introduction should not start off its career as a failure.
That its end was at the hands of a lowly little Klingon Bird of Prey was fitting. The sisters just hit the 'flush' button'.
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.
and before you point out that it's not stated on screen and is therefor not cannon....
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.
you really should delete some of your quotes before posting as that mess is rediculous to comment to^
in any case it doesn't have to be just on screen to be canon, if I'm not mistaken, only vetted by an official source. any star trek book would work if that's the issue here. pick one.
Comments
I find it humorous that someone would try and relay the expectation of writing clearly and in that very post, break their own rule or is that not "reasonable" of me to expect...perhaps a Freudian slip on your part? I pointed out the spelling error as well, cause people that pull this kinda argument on a forum crack me up.
Anyway, that you specifically request TOS is your problem again. Setting your own defined constraints of evidence regarding matters you have no control of is foolhardy at best. The evidence is there. Your acceptance or lack thereof will keep no one awake tonight, I can assure you.
The cloaking device is the "stealth" option in Star Trek. I've never seen or read any Trek lore where it states that having a pancake ship makes it harder to detect on sensors. I'd remind you they don't use Radar in Star Trek. In any event - eye of the beholder I suppose. I still think the Intel ships were the ugliest ships I've ever seen.
When I first saw the Intel ships, I thought the same thing. "God those look like awful Tron ships." But now, I enjoy their visuals the same as I do any other ship. The point is that just because something seems different at first doesn't mean that you won't eventually grow to appreciate it.
And even if I don't appreciate a particular ship, there are plenty of others that may in fact enjoy it. We don't like all the same things after all.
I feel the same about the 31st C ships. The Intel line's appearances were to give the impression of stealth to a specialization that they were also releasing about that time, the Intel specialization. It's like how some ships look fast to give the viewer the idea that they are. In reality, yes, we could slap a cloaking device on a box and have "stealth" and we can slap a big rocket on a box and have "speed", but the designer was trying to show to us what they were for without using just their words, but in style as well. It did that....this doesn't mean we all have to like it or think it's cool, but I associate the design with modern stealth designs, which is clearly what the designer for the Intel ships had in mind...and for that, they achieved their goal.
If only they had put all the 'alien' ships into their own faction.
Water under the bridge that. As is, and for the first time IMO- STO finally does have a good mix of what's available. But they'll need to run the 23rd century Promo again in the future to keep it that.
Oh wait, fans of the NX-01 are still out of luck... guess I'll have to take that back.
I also really like the design of the chimera/manticore heavy destroyers, which a lot of people hate. Unfortunately I can't bring myself to spend 160$ on lts to get them.
My all time favorite ship design is probably the steamrunner, and it's a shame we can't get that one on consoles
Cloaking isn't the only stealth option in Trek. There have been a handful of episodes that state a ships construction, either a combination of materials used or design, or ancillary non-cloaking equipment, can provide a ship with a measure of proof against sensor detection.
The most recent example that comes to my memory is the Enterprise episode where they find the time traveler's pod. Trip flat-out states that if it weren't for the damage to the hull, the Enterprise would never have detected it, as the material of the ship seemed to baffle sensor scans.
I think that's less about design and more about the time period differential. Like a sail boat coming across a nuclear submarine.
While that likely plays a part in it, there are other examples in other series, not just Enterprise.
Frankly, it shouldn't be that surprising. We currently have design and material technologies that can fool or trick current detection methods, without rendering an object completely invisible. Why wouldn't this hold true in a fictional futuristic setting?
T6 steamrunner heavy escort refit maybe? With all the zephyr, Oslo, norway, akira, armitage, etc parts
One that stuck out the most is, Toiler Seat, must be a British term.
There are two camps here. Purists like the OP and myself and people who dont care much for Star Trek and really just want to play Starships Online.
Give me more options for more subdued nacelles. Such as Enterprise A/Miranda, Heavy Cruiser: Stargazer (there is a certain 50's nostalgia going on there), or even the Advanced Escort: Cerberus.
I'd love to have a classic looking UFO look a like ship, like those from the 40s and 50s
Purists however come in many different flavors. TNG purists, DS9 Purists, etc. I'm the narrowest of all, 1st season TOS purist.
But I think Starship Online players outnumber all the purists put together, and includes Cryptic itself.
I was just sayin there are "Star Trek" ships that are heavily influenced by some sort of star trek design elements, then there are plenty of ships in this game (fed focus only) that completely jump the shark and defy those star trek design language and are very generic.
A lot of people make the "Starships online" snark joke, and i see where that comes from.
I'd pay Zen for this:
My character Tsin'xing
Nicely ignored the fact that visual tracking a ship at any significant distance and/or speed in space would be all but impossible. After all, we're talking about ships capable of a significant chuck of C at impulse and much higher with warp engaged. Given that the link speaks of 'against long range sensors', visual tracking becomes even more troublesome.
But whatever. Picard ships must have had mighty telescopic with wind angle lens or something and/or the ship was traveling slow enough to be 'tracked' visually at 'long range'. Sure it would have taken decades or longer to get anywhere- but we're ok with that too.
Technobabble is best when it doesn't use real terms like 'visual'.
Why doesn't the ship look like a pancake?
In all seriousness though this is a much better example then the one from Enterprise as this ship isn't from a future time period. I have no problem with advanced construction materials and what not. I have a problem with making the ship look like it got ran over by a steamroller and thinking because of that it's "stealthy". The intel ships just didn't look like federation ships, but that's just my opinion so you can take that with a grain of salt.
They had better ship designers than STO.
My reaction when it first came onto the screen back in '87 was, "Oh my god, they SD'd it!"
I've never been a fan of the TNG+ ship aesthetic, either, and the majority of STO's original designs haven't been much better.
Same here.
Because of the low nacelles, I immediately labeled it a backward flying toilet seat and have thought of it that way ever since. Add to this that in it's very first appearance when its Captain is going show Q what a "Galaxy Class Starship can do"... it *runs away*. And then fails at that.
That was an epic failure of story-telling craft. In Star Trek the ship should be a character in itself, and it's introduction should not start off its career as a failure.
That its end was at the hands of a lowly little Klingon Bird of Prey was fitting. The sisters just hit the 'flush' button'.
[URL=http://s88.photobucket.com/user/Thlaylie/media/20160919_192756_zpsbpl9un2w.jpg.html][IMG]http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k176/Thlaylie/20160919_192756_zpsbpl9un2w.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
you really should delete some of your quotes before posting as that mess is rediculous to comment to^
in any case it doesn't have to be just on screen to be canon, if I'm not mistaken, only vetted by an official source. any star trek book would work if that's the issue here. pick one.