test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Ten Forward

STDiscovery

wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
in Ten Forward
Have to ask what the deal is with that ugly ship? And it is UGLY! Like someone went to Wolf 359 and welded a bunch of hulks together from floating parts. Couldn't they at least streamline it a little? Or make it look like the pieces were from the same ship?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/bqm9HSYbf0o (can't get this vid to embed for some reason)

Comments

  • thekodanarmada#7342 thekodanarmada
    thekodanarmada#7342
         Member Posts: 1,631 Arc User
    aerodynamics is very important for space travel.
    DInb0Vo.gif[/url][/center]
    Official STARFLEET DENTAL Bug Hunter
    /channel_join NoP Public Service
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    From below, it makes me think of the Vulcan Symbol.
  • tymerstotymersto Member Posts: 433 Arc User
    It might be better to go into the on-going ST:D thread in Ten Forward...


    Than you for the time...
    STO CBT Player - 400 day+ Vet, Currently Silver
    Cryptic, would you actulaly like me to spend actual Money? It's Simple:
    • Full, Story-driven, select from start 1-50 Klingon Side
    • Scrap current Lock Box & Lobi system for something more reasonable
    • Expand Dil and Rep/Fleet Marks to regular story content
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    probably, since I didn't see that one. -.-
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    Was going to close this thread, but not seeing the OP option to do so. My buttons don't always show up.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,361 Arc User
    As far as I know, only mods can close threads.

    The appearance of the ship a) has been stated to be unfinished CGI, and b) is more than a little reminiscent of one of our own T6 cruisers - can't remember the class name, but it's the one featured in most all the ads for 3D-printable STO ships. Cross that with McQuarrie's concept art for Phase II, and there's the Discovery, in all her ungainly glory.​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    not everyone thinks its ugly
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    having trouble thinking of a startrek ship that's less appealing in its visuals...
    It literally looks like something glued together from peices dug out of the trash...

    -.-
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    having trouble thinking of a startrek ship that's less appealing in its visuals...
    It literally looks like something glued together from peices dug out of the trash...

    -.-
    I can. :p
    latest?cb=20110410150553&path-prefix=en
    latest?cb=20050529223049&path-prefix=en
    Also I have no idea what the Sheliak were talking about when they wrote the Treaty of Armens, but that version of the Galaxy is probably hideous too.
    latest?cb=20130503102944&path-prefix=en
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • crypticarmsmancrypticarmsman Member Posts: 4,111 Arc User
    Well, it appears they also have 4 extra months to get the first episode out as TRIBBLE's premiere date has been delayed by CBS to May 2017.
    http://www.polygon.com/2016/9/15/12926800/star-trek-discovery-delayed-may-2017
    Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
    TOS_Connie_Sig_final9550Pop.jpg
    PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    Saw this a little while ago, while trying to figure out where that gawd-aweful design came from, and have to agree with it. >:)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scymiTj9SU4
  • gaalomgaalom Member Posts: 530 Arc User
    No offense but that was kinda of the reason why JJS star trek failed. Instead of putting ships out their, that made sense for that era, instead he put ships out their that looked more advanced then a Galaxy class star ship. The Discovery makes me think of a primitive version of a Galaxy class starship. Keep in mind this show is to take place before the TOS, so unlike enterprise, the people who are making this show might have realized hey this is before all the high tech stuff came into play. So yea its not the best looking ship but maybe its not supposed to be given its spot in the timeline.
  • telbasta7386telbasta7386 Member Posts: 761 Arc User
    It looks like a constellation or ambassador combined with a Klingon D-7/K'tinga.

    What is star trek discovery anyways?
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    but as I've been told, would probably be better to head to ten-forward and mutter on that thread. From the reviews of the ships design I've seen since that preview, it's all been very negative. Haven't seen a positive one yet, though it's nice they are doing more Startrek.
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    and a lot of the terms used seem to be echoes of phrases I found myself using above. Go figure.
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    actually, it wasn't based on a primitive Star Trek concept, but instead on one of the designs one of 'Star Trek: The Movie' designers rejected after he came up with it. Using a rejected design is a little backwards seeming. This ship looks too 'breakable' in its inherent design work - like it would fall apart. Glue and ducttape.
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    anyway, post to the other thread @tymersto threw out there, before this one gets full of complaints about having a second thread on the same topic.

    :|
  • itpalgitpalg Member Posts: 340 Arc User
    Someone discovered they had an TRIBBLE?
    ITPaladin.png
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    itpalg wrote: »
    Someone discovered they had an TRIBBLE?

    StarTrek: Discovery
  • kodachikunokodachikuno Member Posts: 6,020 Arc User1
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    having trouble thinking of a startrek ship that's less appealing in its visuals...
    It literally looks like something glued together from peices dug out of the trash...

    -.-

    federation DSD
  • snoggymack22snoggymack22 Member Posts: 7,084 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    anyway, post to the other thread @tymersto threw out there, before this one gets full of complaints about having a second thread on the same topic.

    :|

    There's a mega thread in Ten Forward for all discussion on the new show.

    Just sayin'

    ;)
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • aphelionmarauderaphelionmarauder Member Posts: 184 Arc User
    I would like someone to explain to me how we get from NX-01 to NCC-1701 when discovery sits right between the two. There has to be a progression, and I am not seeing it anywhere. Any guidance welcome.​​
    Support the movement!
    Come stand with us in supporting Star Trek: The Animated Series content for STO! (It's canon!) #TASforSTO

    Time travel and glass-cannon ships hurt my head and is NOT what Trek is about. Trek is exploration, becoming better as a species, and gaining scientific knowledge while holding on to the traditions that got us where were are.
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,361 Arc User
    aphelionmarauder wrote: »
    I would like someone to explain to me how we get from NX-01 to NCC-1701 when discovery sits right between the two. There has to be a progression, and I am not seeing it anywhere. Any guidance welcome.
    You're not necessarily going to see "a progression". Ship design is not organic evolution. I certainly don't see any "progression" from Old Ironsides to the Merrimac to a Zumwalt-class destroyer or a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • guljarolguljarol Member Posts: 979 Arc User
    I always say it's an illegitimate baby of a Fed ship with a Klingon K'tinga.​​
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    The appearance of the ship a) has been stated to be unfinished CGI, and b) is more than a little reminiscent of one of our own T6 cruisers - can't remember the class name, but it's the one featured in most all the ads for 3D-printable STO ships. Cross that with McQuarrie's concept art for Phase II, and there's the Discovery, in all her ungainly glory.​​

    Also heard that it was supposed to be a mobile base which partially explains its shape.
  • nickodaemusnickodaemus Member Posts: 711 Arc User
    edited September 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    aphelionmarauder wrote: »
    I would like someone to explain to me how we get from NX-01 to NCC-1701 when discovery sits right between the two. There has to be a progression, and I am not seeing it anywhere. Any guidance welcome.
    You're not necessarily going to see "a progression". Ship design is not organic evolution. I certainly don't see any "progression" from Old Ironsides to the Merrimac to a Zumwalt-class destroyer or a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.​​

    You aren't looking, then. Merrimac was burned to the waterline, and the confederates built a wood and iron casement atop the remaining hull & renamed it Virginia. Merrimac & Constitution looked very much alike:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Merrimack_(1855)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Constitution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Virginia

    Virginia was born of necessity, and while the upper deck looks nothing like what came before, you can see its ancestry clearly. Same applies to Langley & Ford:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Langley_(CV-1)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gerald_R._Ford

    The former began as a cruiser with a flight deck added, the latter is the ultimate evolution of the form. The Japanese were compelled to attempt the same thing late in WWII with a Yamato class BB renamed Shinano after a flight deck was added. They were low on carriers at the time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Shinano

    Most recently, this form of naval adaptation/innovation is seen with the Zumwalt & Arleigh Burke:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arleigh_Burke
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

    Just put a stealth box on top & smooth out all the radar reflective corners & angles.

    Edit: Oddly, the Zumwalt looks most like the Virginia imho. It looks nothing like what you mistakenly refer to as the Merrimac.
    Post edited by nickodaemus on
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    I even posted in the mega thread just this morning about the 5 month delay of the show.
    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1212760/da-big-new-trek-tv-show-thread/p1

    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    tymersto wrote: »
    It might be better to go into the on-going ST:D thread in Ten Forward...


    Than you for the time...

    yeah, I think the thread's been brought up.. once or twice...
Sign In or Register to comment.