New Fed ships designs.

jarfaru · February 2016

I was wondering if anyone else misses the round saucers Fed ships are famous for anymore. It just seems like alot of sharp angles on every new ship they make.

dracounguis · February 2016

After TOS there really weren't a lot of round saucers, if you think about it. Ambassador class 1701-C might have been it for 'new' designs.

Not saying I'd be against having a round saucer option in the ship tailor for various ships...

kontarnus · February 2016

1960s aesthetics on ships created for a game running more than 50 years later, in real time, and more than 140 years later in game time?

Another veiled thread.

sovereign47 · February 2016

I'm thinking that completely round saucers are not that aerodynamic and don't look that sleek either. Since the introduction of Intrepid, Sovereign and Prometheus classes, majority of the ships have been made according to their lines which is perfectly logical given that they are the most advanced designs on screen. And that is alright with me, since I like those ships better than ones from TOS.

nikeix · February 2016

The degree to which we are still enslaved to the Constitution-class hull layout is breathtaking. It's like arguing a Concorde should have had four unswept wings, 'cause that's how the Wright Brothers intended us to fly. The advance of technology and the physics of flight disagree.

But really, since they added Quantum Slipstream drives to the setting, a more streamlined appearance is mandatory. Too bad the Devs don't remember than for any faction other than the Federation...

evilmark444 · February 2016

kontarnus wrote: »

1960s aesthetics on ships created for a game running more than 50 years later, in real time, and more than 140 years later in game time?

Another veiled thread.

Voicing a fondness for a particular design aesthetic =/= "Give me a T6 Connie please." The Ambassador class has a circular saucer, and there's nothing stopping the dev team from featuring one in one of their new designs. I personally prefer the elongated Sovereign style saucer, but I am surprised that Cryptic hasn't included the circular style in any ship currently available at T6.

sovereign47 wrote: »

I'm thinking that completely round saucers are not that aerodynamic

... did you really just mention aerodynamics in relation to a game that takes place primarily in space? There's no atmosphere in space, which means nothing to provide resistance during travel, which means aerodynamics have no effect on a ship's ability to fly or maneuver.

nikeix · February 2016

evilmark444 wrote: »

... did you really just mention aerodynamics in relation to a game that takes place primarily in space? There's no atmosphere in space, which means nothing to provide resistance during travel, which means aerodynamics have no effect on a ship's ability to fly or maneuver.

And one post later I brought up that in the Star Trek universe YES, aerodynamic or hydrodynamic styling DOES have an impact, both for Quantum Slipstream functionality and the occasional dip into the Fluidic Universe. And getting huffy about "its in space" in a game with a universal plane of orientation and ships banking to turn seems to being ascribing a bit more hard science than anyone making the game is interested in actually delivering on

.

snoggymack22 · February 2016

sovereign47 wrote: »

I'm thinking that completely round saucers are not that aerodynamic

For space travel considerations, the Borg Sphere is the most functional ship design out there. It's shaped like all those other massive objects that travel through space ... planets, stars, comets. You know, spherical, like a globe.

mustrumridcully0 · February 2016

The new Oddy has a round saucer, for example. The Command Cruisers has a variant with a very rounded saucer, and the Guardian saucer is also pretty round, as is the saucer of the Andromeda.

snoggymack22 wrote: »

sovereign47 wrote: »

I'm thinking that completely round saucers are not that aerodynamic

For space travel considerations, the Borg Sphere is the most functional ship design out there. It's shaped like all those other massive objects that travel through space ... planets, stars, comets. You know, spherical, like a globe.

I am not convinced Spheres are really the best. They are bad for packing, for example, and also not very modular. The Borg Cube makes more sense to me. You can easily imagine it being build from several smaller cubes, or it even growing over time and still retain a generally useful interior.

Spherical objects like stars or planets are spherical because of their significant mass. Most spaceships in Star Trek never get that big that this would be a major concern.

nikeix · February 2016

snoggymack22 wrote: »

For space travel considerations, the Borg Sphere is the most functional ship design out there. It's shaped like all those other massive objects that travel through space ... planets, stars, comets. You know, spherical, like a globe.

Actually, for volume to surface area (that thing for which the sphere is perfect) the cubes are basically the second best design Trek has ever seen

.

I loved the Borg cubes when they were first introduced. "Finally, somebody who doesn't mount their engines on the ends of the longest, spindliest, most breakable part of the hull..."

angrytarg · February 2016

nikeix wrote: »

The degree to which we are still enslaved to the Constitution-class hull layout is breathtaking. It's like arguing a Concorde should have had four unswept wings, 'cause that's how the Wright Brothers intended us to fly. The advance of technology and the physics of flight disagree.

But really, since they added Quantum Slipstream drives to the setting, a more streamlined appearance is mandatory. Too bad the Devs don't remember than for any faction other than the Federation...

This is about recognition, though. In Trekverse the ships used to look like this, period. If we get so many new designs now that look completely different, what point is there to still make it a Star Trek game? In my opinion, every ship design available should always come with three basic shapes catering to each design lineage. TOS-inspired, TNG or post TNG. STO doesn't take any kind of logical evolution into account, it's a theme park and should cater to the broadest audience.

Defending the more edgy designs with any kind of aerodynamics, stealth effect or weapons efficiency really is moot. Aerodynamics are irrelevant, save for those ships that are actually designed to operate in atmospheres as @reyan01 pointed out - Intrepid, Nova or a Galaxy's saucer module (not the whole ship, mind you). Stealth via hull plating is also irrelevant as Trek ships do not use active RADAR scanning where angled hulls would deflect the radio waves somehow. And weapon efficiency wise the cornered, edgy designs really fail because they deliver subpar targeting angles. A Galaxy has maximum coverage with her primary weapons and can even target something dead ahead with both of the main arrays. A Sovereign and similiar can't and they have so many blind spots it's staggering.

bubblegirl2015 · February 2016

jarfaru wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone else misses the round saucers Fed ships are famous for anymore. It just seems like alot of sharp angles on every new ship they make.

Could care less for any saucer like ship. I love the new modern and future ship designs. IMO saucer seems very archaic and old dated...yes even for a near SCI FI MMO

nikeix · February 2016

I appreciate best where Star Trek chose an engineering constraint and stuck with it - for example the need to have pairs of long warp nacelles with open space between them created a unified design aesthetic that reaches across the vast majority of the Trek Universe (and why I'm right there with some of the frothing purists that the Yamato is DUMB even with the 'oh, there's two nacelles packaged inside a single cowling' butt-cover excuse).

The nacelles gave the setting a unified look with a set of rules you could iterate on as your timeline progressed. You could argue that at one time the rule of main crew area being isolated fro the engineering section (primary/secondary hulls) both made sense and could be seen across a range of species' ship designs until the designers got bored/lazy and started doing merged hulls for all the first-contact-of-the-week episodes. The problem is the engineering reasons for a circular primary hull were never strongly put forward and fans clinging to it in the light of 50 years of canon design evolution away from that seems a bit silly. I can't imagine they all insist on driving around 60's-era cars for that warm fuzzy feeling...?

I suppose it's not surprising the one Federation ship I consider a main ship is an Eclipse. Gearin's corollary says "Any sufficiently advanced tool is indistinguishable from art: once you can ignore technical constraints you build things to be beautiful." The Eclipse still looks every inch the Federation design ethos to me, but its also beautiful.

k20vtec · February 2016

nikeix wrote: »

I appreciate best where Star Trek chose an engineering constraint and stuck with it - for example the need to have pairs of long warp nacelles with open space between them created a unified design aesthetic that reaches across the vast majority of the Trek Universe (and why I'm right there with some of the frothing purists that the Yamato is DUMB even with the 'oh, there's two nacelles packaged inside a single cowling' butt-cover excuse).

The nacelles gave the setting a unified look with a set of rules you could iterate on as your timeline progressed. You could argue that at one time the rule of main crew area being isolated fro the engineering section (primary/secondary hulls) both made sense and could be seen across a range of species' ship designs until the designers got bored/lazy and started doing merged hulls for all the first-contact-of-the-week episodes. The problem is the engineering reasons for a circular primary hull were never strongly put forward and fans clinging to it in the light of 50 years of canon design evolution away from that seems a bit silly. I can't imagine they all insist on driving around 60's-era cars for that warm fuzzy feeling...?

I suppose it's not surprising the one Federation ship I consider a main ship is an Eclipse. Gearin's corollary says "Any sufficiently advanced tool is indistinguishable from art: once you can ignore technical constraints you build things to be beautiful." The Eclipse still looks every inch the Federation design ethos to me, but its also beautiful.

Cylinders and sphere have highest volume per surface area ratio.

mrsmitty81 · February 2016

Personally I like the saucer shape of the sovereign class and the more modern designs to the old constitution and the more recent galaxy class.

kapla5571 · February 2016

I always wonder where the warp nacelles are on the Borg ships -Cube, Sphere, Probe, Diamond- or is the Federation twin nacelle design just archiac to the Borg in their search for perfection.

mustrumridcully0 · February 2016

kapla5571 wrote: »

I always wonder where the warp nacelles are on the Borg ships -Cube, Sphere, Probe, Diamond- or is the Federation twin nacelle design just archiac to the Borg in their search for perfection.

It seems likely that the Borg tech is simply advanced enough this isn't an issue anymore. Or maybe the Nanites are just better that repairing warp radiation damage.

That said - the Defiant seems to be a good example of the Federation at least being able to bring the nacelles closer into the ship frame. So it could very well be simply a stylistic choice. Compared to our tech, Starfleet might simply no longer need to worry about how thin any component is - it's thickness has little impact on its actual resilience. I guess it's all dependent structural integrity fields anyway.

khan5000 · February 2016

angrytarg wrote: »

nikeix wrote: »

Defending the more edgy designs with any kind of aerodynamics, stealth effect or weapons efficiency really is moot. Aerodynamics are irrelevant, save for those ships that are actually designed to operate in atmospheres as @reyan01 pointed out - Intrepid, Nova or a Galaxy's saucer module (not the whole ship, mind you). Stealth via hull plating is also irrelevant as Trek ships do not use active RADAR scanning where angled hulls would deflect the radio waves somehow. And weapon efficiency wise the cornered, edgy designs really fail because they deliver subpar targeting angles. A Galaxy has maximum coverage with her primary weapons and can even target something dead ahead with both of the main arrays. A Sovereign and similiar can't and they have so many blind spots it's staggering.

This is actually not true. If you look back at the TOS episode "Let that be your last Battlefield" The Enterprise is harassed by a ship that i practically invisible. When Bele comes aboard he mentions that his ship was "sheathed in special materials that rendered it invisible." So Star Trek does have stealth via hull plating.

angrytarg · February 2016

khan5000 wrote: »

This is actually not true. If you look back at the TOS episode "Let that be your last Battlefield" The Enterprise is harassed by a ship that i practically invisible. When Bele comes aboard he mentions that his ship was "sheathed in special materials that rendered it invisible." So Star Trek does have stealth via hull plating.

Visually invisible, but perfectly detectable by sensors which makes it use somewhat questionable, however.

snoggymack22 · February 2016

I am not convinced Spheres are really the best. They are bad for packing, for example, and also not very modular. The Borg Cube makes more sense to me. You can easily imagine it being build from several smaller cubes, or it even growing over time and still retain a generally useful interior.

Spherical objects like stars or planets are spherical because of their significant mass. Most spaceships in Star Trek never get that big that this would be a major concern.

True. But for me the sphere I think (and this is going to go kind of off the rails) ... perfect for space combat. While this is well beyond the capabilities of this game and also gets really abstract and off the beaten path (and I think one of the primary reasons why Star Trek always wanted to adhere to a tall ships combat model) ... space happens in 360 degrees. So a sphere that could quickly reorient itself to all those dimensions would be way more functional in terms of space combat.

Like I said, I'm going way off the rails. But it's kind of been in my head for awhile now (I've been working on a, heh, retro sci fi graphic novel for a couple years now, and the main ship is a sphere. Though I'm doing it for visual effect. It's an exploratory ship, so it looks like a big eyeball out in space). But like my whole idea was that it could get around in space easier by being able to orient in all three dimensions quicker. It wouldn't fly in that 2 dimensional straight line that we visualize. And it could also do the same for combat.

That being said, getting back to this actual topic, I'm a fan of the retro round saucer section look and it goes well past TOS and the Constitution. It's also present in the Excelsior and really the look is adhered to by a lot of ships in the shows and even in this game as pointed out already. Heck, it's the reason I chose getting a Guardian over other ships during this past ship sale weekend just because it looked like a hot new take on the Ambassador and Galaxy from the shows. It looked more classic trek to me than, say, the Endeavour. So I can totally understand why some people like round saucers. It's just a taste thing. And I think the primary reason people will bring up "but this is space" to defend their taste for round saucers is that functionally (and this is seen in the shows too), because it is in space, there's not really a strong need for aerodynamics. Outside of just liking a more sleek looking ship. Which other people obviously like.

So in general, it's not really a "O-em-gee it's space there's no aerodynamics!" ... it's more of a "it's space, both sleek ships and round saucers, and even the old Golfball saucer of the Paseteur, can all exist and function just fine, so people like what they like."

daveyny · February 2016

Old School Trekker...
I just happen to prefer the Original Classic Shapes.
Not that I don't like the newer ones, but I gravitate toward the Movie Enterprise look when ever I'm given the opportunity in game.

artan42 · February 2016

jarfaru wrote: »

I was wondering if anyone else misses the round saucers Fed ships are famous for anymore. It just seems like alot of sharp angles on every new ship they make.

They went the way of the dodo by the time of DS9. The Akira's the only ship of that era with a fully round saucer.

New Fed ships designs.

Comments