Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 21
12-07-2012, 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
I mean, you can't just take the design of an old wooden sloop, make it out of metal with computers on board, and then say "Have at it!". Technology just doesn't work that way.
And you don't seem to understand how space technology in the Star Trek universe works either. A K'tinga is not made of wood. It's made of the same metals that a Vor'cha or Negh'var is made of. It has a similar kind of propulsion. It doesn't use "space sails". It has a warp and impulse drive. So long as the ship's spaceframe is structurally sound and can handle new and improved tech, the ship's appearance really only needs to be functional and practical (no matter what era it was designed in) which the K'tinga obviously is, according to Klingon standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Shipyards and factories function by being able to efficiently produce components necessary for mass-produced products. If, today, you wanted to build a P-51 Mustang, it would have to be a custom job -- the infrastructure just doesn't exist for making those parts anymore. It's completely prohibitive except from a recreational standpoint, something a hobbyist with a lot of time, money, and resources on their hands might do.
A P-51 Mustang is not a valid example either because it is a type of craft that was designed to be aerodynamic. And as aircraft tech progressed, more aerodynamic shapes were needed in order to break the sound barrier. In space, the important thing a Star Trek ship needs to do is cruise at high warp speeds. Now we don't know how "spaciodynamic" they have to be in order to get up to warp 9 and beyond (though I suspect the transwarp engines we all use now renders that point moot). But at impulse speeds, one ship performs very much like another no matter what shape it is, because they were all designed to maneuver and handle the normal stresses of non-warp space flight.

The infrastructure to build 100 year old ship designs is still available in the 25th century because the construction techniques used now can still be adapted to fabricate ships of old designs with modern technology that are not significantly technologically different from modern ships.

Last edited by fulleatherjacket; 12-07-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,002
# 22
12-07-2012, 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
And you don't seem to understand how space technology in the Star Trek universe works either. A K'tinga is not made of wood. It's made of the same metals that a Vor'cha or Negh'var is made of. It has a similar kind of propulsion. It doesn't use "space sails". It has a warp and impulse drive. So long as the ship's spaceframe is structurally sound and can handle new and improved tech, the ship's appearance really only needs to be functional and practical (no matter what era it was designed in) which the K'tinga obviously is, according to Klingon standards.

A P-51 Mustang is not a valid example either because it is a type of craft that was designed to be aerodynamic. And as aircraft tech progressed, more aerodynamic shapes were needed in order to break the sound barrier. In space, the important thing a Star Trek ship needs to do is cruise at high warp speeds. Now we don't know how "spaciodynamic" they have to be in order to get up to warp 9 and beyond (though I suspect the transwarp engines we all use now renders that point moot). But at impulse speeds, one ship performs very much like another no matter what shape it is, because they were all designed to maneuver and handle the normal stresses of non-warp space flight.

The infrastructure to build 100 year old ship designs is still available in the 25th century because the construction techniques used now can still be adapted to fabricate ships of old designs with modern technology that are not significantly technologically different from modern ships.
You know, one of the earliest episodes of Enterprise actually showed the Klingons flying a D7 cruiser, when later on in the show they're shown using D5s? What's up with that?

Well, what's up is that the show has always, always been subject to just not having enough money to design a new ship whenever they need one. That's why Klingon designs last for so long, why Klingon Birds-of-Prey are shown lasting such a long time and being radically different scales, and also why the Miranda and Excelsior class were in service for so long.

Any reason given is just something to excuse the presence of such old designs. Just like "modular design" is just an excuse for older ships to be available to players in STO. It's not very realistic, though.

Warp technology changes, which requires new warp coils, which means it needs both a new warp core and a new nacelle design. The rest of the ship is pretty much built around the new nacelle design, since the ship has to be built within the confines of its own warp field, no matter what its task is supposed to be at sub-warp speeds. You couldn't realistically cram any old warp code and nacelles onto any old ship and expect it to work right, but due to budgetary concerns in the show and fanservice concerns in the game, that's what appears to happen.

EDIT:
Incidentally, since your argument deals chiefly with Klingons, I recommend this article: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...tlecruiser.htm

Namely, this part:
"The fanon argument that Klingons are warriors, as opposed to engineers who would more likely frequently come up with new ship designs, is an insufficient excuse in my view. Warriors need always the best weapons. Even the good old bat'leth may have been improved several times using new alloys, and the same likely applies to ship hulls. The Klingons are not Hirogen, they want to win a battle and not have the thrill of fighting a superior enemy with traditional hunting rituals. They are eager to get the new holotechnology in "Unexpected" as well as they quickly adopt cloaking devices prior to "Star Trek III", so it is implausible that their ships should always stay the same."

Last edited by thratch1; 12-07-2012 at 04:38 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 750
# 23
12-07-2012, 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
You know, one of the earliest episodes of Enterprise actually showed the Klingons flying a D7 cruiser, when later on in the show they're shown using D5s? What's up with that?
From the same article you linked:

"In Star Trek: The Magazine the issue with the battlecruiser in "Unexpected" was explained: "As Rob (Bonchune) explains, John Eaves had designed a new Klingon ship specifically for this scene. 'It was kind of the same shape as the original Klingon battle cruiser; just a little more primitive. The way John had done it was very much like the original series one, so it had very few windows, and they were small and red. So, when I dropped the ship into the scenes that we had worked out, you couldn't see that it had windows. At the time, it never dawned on me that this would be an issue, but I understand why it is, because in STAR TREK if there are windows they are obvious.' The producers saw the model only a few working hours before the show was due to be delivered. They decided it could only be used with major changes, but after their work on Broken Bow the team was simply too exhausted to work through the night in a desperate attempt to get the shots ready. Instead, the producers made the decision to use an old model. 'We wound up going back to a version of the Klingon ship that had been built for DEEP SPACE NINE,' Mitch (Suskin) says. 'But that particular type of Klingon ship will not be used again, because they decided that it just didn't fit into their vision for this universe.' Rob admits that, he for one, is sorry the old ship was used, but acknowledges there was no alternative. 'As a fan I really regret that that ship is in there, but people were just working too much. After Broken Bow, everyone had already worked so much overtime'."

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Any reason given is just something to excuse the presence of such old designs.
Since we're all talking subjective opinions here, I can say that any reason why old designs shouldn't still be around is just an excuse to demand old designs be removed because people don't like them.

In the end, Bernd Schneider is just presenting his opinion too. Even he concedes:

"Maybe it is a traditional hull shape and there was no need to alter it even as the technology became more advanced."

We can argue over explanations all day as to why ships from different eras should or shouldn't be in the game. What matters to me is that people enjoy commanding them and enjoy the game more for it.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,002
# 24
12-07-2012, 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
We can argue over explanations all day as to why ships from different eras should or shouldn't be in the game. What matters to me is that people enjoy commanding them and enjoy the game more for it.
Point of fact: from my first post in this thread, I never disagreed on this point. My entire argument was that it just wasn't realistic, which I still stand by.

I wouldn't care if I entered an STF full of TOS Connies and NX ships. I just play the space game because I like blowing stuff up in my favorite ship, and I fully support everyone else being able to do the same.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 270
# 25
12-07-2012, 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fulleatherjacket View Post
It's made of the same metals that a Vor'cha or Negh'var is made of.
That may not actually be true. That's like saying the armor of an Abrhams tank is the same as the armor of a Sherman tank. they aren't even remotely similar, except they share a common component metal (steel). The Galaxy Class may very well have a different type of Duranium than the Connie.
_____________________________________________

"Second star on the right, and straight on till morning."

U.S.S. Weatherlight
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,002
# 26
12-07-2012, 08:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ussweatherlight View Post
That may not actually be true. That's like saying the armor of an Abrhams tank is the same as the armor of a Sherman tank. they aren't even remotely similar, except they share a common component metal (steel). The Galaxy Class may very well have a different type of Duranium than the Connie.
That's true. Just as there are many different types and grades of Titanium alloy, there could be any number of different types of Duranium alloys in use in Star Trek, or possibly some other alloy, especially among alien races.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 130
# 27
12-07-2012, 11:51 PM
thratch
1. The TOS Constitution was actually for TOS fans, it's that balantly obvious. And we have Exeter/Excalibur/Vesper that are based on the SAME hull design as TOS/Movie Era Constitution, so I can't even say TOS Consstitution is really meaningful for the current setting. I mean the NX Replica probably have the excuse of being useful for a "small patrol" escort for the war emergency or what not.

2. Replica ships (Excelsiors and NXs for Federation) and using hull designs for generations with updates to correspond to current technology (Raptors, BoP, and Battlecruisers for KDF) are not the same thing as using individual ships that are centuries old themselves (which is what you and ussweatherlight are implying). Fulleatherjacket is saying the ships of Raptor, BoP, and Battlecruiser are build or refitted to the same kind of armor as other contemporary KDF ships.

In space it is far easier to replace panels of armor with ones of newer alloys on a starship than it was for a bluewater warship.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,002
# 28
12-08-2012, 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexhurlbut View Post
In space it is far easier to replace panels of armor with ones of newer alloys on a starship than it was for a bluewater warship.
Are you sure? Have you seen someone refit a ship in space, versus refitting a ship on land?

Technology dictates the design of a thing. That's just the way it's always been, and the way it will always be.

It's why every iPhone is slightly different. It's why the Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carrier was 1,069ft long, the Enterprise-class was 1,123ft long, the Nimitz-class is 1,092ft.

Trek logic is not realistic. That's my whole and only argument. It doesn't make sense to build a replica ship, or use an old ship design, when there are newer designs that make much more efficient use of newer technology, and that your shipyards are better prepared to build.

The only reason designs seem to last so long in Star Trek is budgetary. It's why the Nightingale in Voyager used the Peregrine Fighter design (even though the Nightingale was much, much, much larger than the Federation fighter), and why so many background alien ships are recycled so much (across the entire galaxy, in the case of Voyager re-using assets from TNG and DS9).
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,416
# 29
12-08-2012, 01:08 AM
To the idea that the NX shares nothing in common with other more modern ships, so making one wouldn't be cost effective during wartime, etc etc.

Ever heard of the AKira-prise ?

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...gn_comment.htm

Just putting that out there.

I have no other real comments except ... it's a game. It's fun to fly around in an NX or a Constitution and shoot bad guys. I don't care if it makes sense. It's fun.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,002
# 30
12-08-2012, 01:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
To the idea that the NX shares nothing in common with other more modern ships, so making one wouldn't be cost effective during wartime, etc etc.

Ever heard of the AKira-prise ?

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ar...gn_comment.htm

Just putting that out there.

I have no other real comments except ... it's a game. It's fun to fly around in an NX or a Constitution and shoot bad guys. I don't care if it makes sense. It's fun.
Similar superficial design features does not a modular relative make.

Again, though... I've never disagreed with allowing anyone to fly any ship they want to. I just disagree with the argument that it's at all realistic, even from a Treknobabble sense.
Reply

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 03:39 PM.