Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
12-30-2010, 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by genxcraig View Post

But the typhoon battleship would be nice.
agreed....
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
12-30-2010, 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunder Child
To help you folks out with the Akira-Defiant scaling issue, you might want to have a look at the Ex Astris Scientia article about the Defiant problems. The way that ship was scaled on screen varies wildly, though not as much as the BoP.
There is also one about the Akira where the deck structure clearly shows it's around 400 meters.

http://ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/akira-size.htm
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
12-30-2010, 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I don't actually have a problem with that - both ships were new to the franchise. If anything this merely tells us that the Raptor at that time was very close to a cruiser as well. In fact, according to its MA article, Archer called it a "battlecruiser" in the episode Marauders.
This referred to Vorko's Battlecruiser from the Episode "Unexpected", MA makes mistakes you know.

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Vorok%27s_battle_cruiser

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
What visual evidence are you referring to?

It is also of note that we don't have an actual size reference for the NX-class. At least as far as I'm aware of, all numbers concerning that ship come from soft canon sources, and we know how "reliable" those are. That age-old problem of Trek fluff...
There is a scene in "The Augments" where you can see them side-by side.
The NX was built for a scale of 225 meters, as was said by Doug Drexler.
But since he was just responsible for the ship and is no size chart, it's probably better to ignore him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Same as with the scaling issues, really. What numbers should we refer to, if not the FX charts? Even when they did not adhere to them in every single instance it's the next best thing we have to consistency.
So the Galaxy is not 642.51 meters long because there is not VFX chart that says so...sure.
And the Constitution Refit is also not 305 meters long because it was never said so on screen and there is not DS9 chart that says so.
And the guys at ILM that built the Miranda were horribly wrong when they buill the Miranda for a size of 243m because the almighty DS9 size-chart tells us she's only 150 meters long.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
12-30-2010, 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
This referred to Vorko's Battlecruiser from the Episode "Unexpected", MA makes mistakes you know.
You mean Archer's remark?

Not that it would change anything about the ships in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
So the Galaxy is not 642.51 meters long because there is not VFX chart that says so...sure. And the Constitution Refit is also not 305 meters long because it was never said so on screen and there is not DS9 chart that says so.
I'm just saying that if there is an official size chart it's probably better to use that rather than to rely on something some fan came up with, or inconclusive references from episodes and movies that show the ships at totally different sizes.

Either that or we can outright acknowledge that there is no canon size for anything in Trek that wasn't outright stated and never contradicted by actors or displays on-screen. Take your pick.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
12-31-2010, 02:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'm just saying that if there is an official size chart it's probably better to use that rather than to rely on something some fan came up with, or inconclusive references from episodes and movies that show the ships at totally different sizes.

Either that or we can outright acknowledge that there is no canon size for anything in Trek that wasn't outright stated and never contradicted by actors or displays on-screen. Take your pick.
So you'd prefer to use a size chart that is known to be completely flawed and that is also known to scale ships not based on criteria like their physical arrangement and deck structure but because of the personal sense of aestetics of Mr. Stipes, as we saw with the Miranda that was scaled so the Defiant would look good next to it.
So the chart is not based in any consistency but you use it as a source for consistency, don't you see the gaping hole in your logic there?
Also I'm not talking about what fans made up, I'm talking about the people who made the ships, like Drexler and Propert who buit the ships with a very specific size in mind and an arrangement that is based in that size.
Like the two deck thick saucer on the Constitution refit and the Miranda were based in a 305 and 243 meter long ship respectively.
In addition all the ships that I mentioned, including the Akira, are years older than the DS9 chart.
However based on your logic, the size chart that was created years after the ships, of which none was made for DS9 by the way, is right and the ships are wrong.
How can a chart that was created after the fact be right and the ships and the people who built them be wrong?
Beside as "Message in a Bottle" clearly shows this size chart had about as much influence on the VFX people as a glass of peanut butter.
Take your pick, either they disregarded the size figure given for the Defiant or for the Akira, either way it shows a lot about the worth of a VFX size chart when the VFX people don't use it and instead scale the ships in a way that is consistent with the original intent of 150 vs 400 meters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
12-31-2010, 04:08 AM
On topic... I wonder if the OP knows the guy from this thread... Just sayin'...

-Big Red
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
12-31-2010, 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
So you'd prefer to use a size chart that is known to be completely flawed and that is also known to scale ships not based on criteria like their physical arrangement and deck structure but because of the personal sense of aestetics of Mr. Stipes, as we saw with the Miranda that was scaled so the Defiant would look good next to it.
So the chart is not based in any consistency but you use it as a source for consistency, don't you see the gaping hole in your logic there?
No. Because the chart still served as a reference, and I would think that the FX guys did stick to it most of the time. If you have proof for the opposite, let me know.

As for the deck structure, that's a leftover of the Akira's first designer's megalomania. The ship model was constructed for a size of about ~400-500 meters, but got scaled down for the movie and the series. This kind of re-scaling happens all the time in Trek, and it always looks messy, but that doesn't change anything about the facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
Also I'm not talking about what fans made up, I'm talking about the people who made the ships, like Drexler and Propert who buit the ships with a very specific size in mind and an arrangement that is based in that size.
And still a series' creators overrule the thoughts and preferrences of a ship's designers, for the latter are subordinate employees of the former. Also, canon usually is defined by how something ends up on the big screen, is it not? Mr. Jaeger's personal opinion has zero influence on this.

Which I'm actually glad about. As much as I love the Akira's looks and adore him for designing her that way (my human Tac is flying one right now!), I absolutely cannot stomach his crazy idea about the whole "torpedo-overkill-fighter-carrier-wondership" stuff. Honestly, how much over the top can you go? Only thing missing is a phase cloak and transwarp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mister_dee
In addition all the ships that I mentioned, including the Akira, are years older than the DS9 chart. However based on your logic, the size chart that was created years after the ships, of which none was made for DS9 by the way, is right and the ships are wrong. How can a chart that was created after the fact be right and the ships and the people who built them be wrong?
Retcon - happens all the time. But maybe you have the size chart for First Contact? That would certainly be helpful in this discussion.

Look, there are only two solutions to this debate. Either we go by the size chart and the comments of the people who put the ship on screen, or we accept the fact that scaling in Star Trek is messed up, which would leave the question of the Akira's size unanswered. Either way, a ship's original designer's personal opinion is completely irrelevant.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28 want some tissue???
12-31-2010, 11:30 PM
lots of crying going on.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29 Carriers are not overpowered...
01-01-2011, 12:41 AM
so what would be the problem with the federation getting one?

3 Bops + 2 neutralizing carriers + dozen pets... all targeting a single target
3 bursts + 2 neutralizers + dozen small damages... all targeting you

I would love it if my cruiser had pets, healing it would be easy, the downed turn rate would be compensated by making an all turret build... yeah

like i asked earlier, what would be the problem with the federation getting an under/regular powered ship?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
01-01-2011, 03:20 AM
I definitly start to to dislike those folks who want to take away anything unique from us Klingons, even if it is one of the last few unique things we have
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:56 AM.