Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
# 81
02-08-2013, 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
No, I really can't, because that jpeg is blocked on my computer and I don't really feel like disagreeing with my computer. Also, when ex-astris-scientia.org becomes an official source or is part of a collaborative project focusing on canonical work the way that Memory Alpha is, then I might consider it reliable. But as near as I can tell it is neither of these things.
You can physically see the different ships next to each other, and next to people, to see precisely what size they are. The Ex Astris articles may not themselves be canon, but the on-screen evidence he uses to write them definitely are.

Quote:
Eh... actually... the whales were in a cargo hold that was located underneath the massive silver parts that you claim nothing can be inside of (those silver things actually contain lots of bulkhead space (also known as Jeffries Tubes)). Crew Quarters are actually above the bulkhead space. The Engineering section is just behind the Silver parts of the ship. And the actual drive section is further back, and that is the part of the ship you can't actually get into while the drive is active, unless you want to suffer radiation poisoning the way that Spock did at the end of the Wrath of Khan. Interestingly enough the Gangway Plank is right underneath the Drive section. So basically your entire premise is incorrect as indicated in this image the first part of which was done by Jackill.
You're using a cutaway of the side to explain away something that is better seen from the front. You can see how the hinge works in motion, and it clearly takes up as much space as looks like it does. You can't put tubes running the length of a moving part that's made of essentially a bunch of blades sliding against each other.

Also, it's funny how you essentially say to me, "this Ex Astris site that uses on-screen evidence is totally non-canon and doesn't mean anything, but this piece of art by some guy on Geocities is totally applicable."

Seriously man, read the Ex Astris article. All I was saying is that the size of Klingon Bird-of-Preys isn't very good evidence to use to prove a point, since their size varies wildly, and the article proves it with scenes taken directly from the movies and TV shows. There's really no room for debate on this, all you have to do is look at the pictures.

Last edited by thratch1; 02-08-2013 at 11:05 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 82
02-08-2013, 11:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
You can physically see the different ships next to each other, and next to people, to see precisely what size they are. The Ex Astris articles may not themselves be canon, but the on-screen evidence he uses to write them definitely are.
Unless you link me to the same image hosted on a different website I cannot see what you are seeing because it is literally impossible for me to see that image without doing serious software code removal on my computer or by hacking the Ex Astris website. Neither of which I am interested in doing at this or any time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
You're using a cutaway of the side to explain away something that is better seen from the front. You can see how the hinge works in motion, and it clearly takes up as much space as looks like it does. You can't put tubes running the length of a moving part that's made of essentially a bunch of blades sliding against each other.
Okay, I don't know if you are basing your assumption that those gigantic silver devices on the top of the B'rel class starship are henges because of something you saw happening in Star Trek Online, but unless you provide explicit evidence from the TV Series or the Movies showing that they are in fact gears and not something else entirely, then I will have no recourse but to say that your information is false in this case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Also, it's funny how you essentially say to me, "this Ex Astris site is totally non-canon and doesn't mean anything, but this piece of fan art by some guy on Geocities is totally applicable."
I specified the first part of that image, in otherwords the profile cutaway. That Cutaway was taken from this image by Eric Kristiansen (aka Jackill) who has written FIVE Star Trek Technical Manuals. Whether Jackill's technical manuals are official Canon, I don't know. But they are recognizable sources within the Star Trek Community and are used on numerous sites around the internet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Seriously man, read the Ex Astris article. All I was saying is that the size of Klingon Bird-of-Preys isn't very good evidence to use to prove a point, since their size varies wildly, and the article proves it with scenes taken directly from the movies and TV shows. There's really no room for debate on this, all you have to do is look at the pictures.
Also, please refer to the Bird of Prey in question as the B'rel. Because the term Bird of Prey is used to denote any one of several different types of ship. The B'rel is the specific type that was seen in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Arguing size based on an entire genre of ships is kind of pointless. It would be like me trying to compare the size of Airplanes to the size of Airships (Blimps including those of the Hindenburg class).
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 02-08-2013 at 11:20 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
# 83
02-08-2013, 11:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
Unless you link me to the same image hosted on a different website I cannot see what you are seeing because it is literally impossible for me to see that image without doing serious software code removal on my computer or by hacking the Ex Astris website. Neither of which I am interested in doing at this or any time.
Just go to the article itself, I'll link it again:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm



Quote:
Okay, I don't know if you are basing your assumption that those gigantic silver devices on the top of the B'rel class starship are henges because of something you saw happening in Star Trek Online, but unless you provide explicit evidence from the TV Series or the Movies showing that they are in fact gears and not something else entirely, then I will have no recourse but to say that your information is false in this case.
Again, the evidence is seen on screen. You just need to look at the article, and look at the differences in the silver parts with the wings up, and the wings down. The bladed parts clearly fold into one-another; it's not just something STO does. Here's another article that has good images of the Birds-of-Prey with their wings up:
http://www.suricatafx.com/?p=274



Quote:
I specified the first part of that image, in otherwords the profile cutaway. That Cutaway was taken from this image by Eric Kristiansen (aka Jackill) who has written FIVE Star Trek Technical Manuals. Whether Jackill's technical manuals are official Canon, I don't know. But they are recognizable sources within the Star Trek Community and are used on numerous sites around the internet.



Also, please refer to the Bird of Prey in question as the B'rel. Because the term Bird of Prey is used to denote any one of several different types of ship. The B'rel is the specific type that was seen in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
The B'rel itself was shown in Star Trek IV alone as being as small as 50 meters long, and as large as 300 meters. Note the scene where the ship is hovering above the whaling boat, versus a scene on Vulcan where people are walking around the ship as it's landed -- both shots have people in them, at incredibly different sizes.

Also, the technical manuals that you refer to were third-party publications, and have often had to make a best guess about some things. They're apocryphal at best.

How is this still a debate. Please just read the article before coming back.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 168
# 84
02-08-2013, 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Just go to the article itself, I'll link it again:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm
Okay, here is the thing, the one image that he has the Mirror Defiant up against a Bird of Prey, he doesn't specify if it is the B'rel or not. Which is problematic considering the K'vort and the B'rel are virtually identical in outward appearance except for their size.

Now understand that Deep Space Nine is absolutely massive, at 1,452 meters in diameter. That is roughly 4632.546 feet in diameter and a circumference of 2.83 miles. The Bird of Prey and the Mirror Defiant dominate the profile of Deep Space Nine, so they are obviously some distance away from the station itself. In essence the Bird of Prey in question could either be a B'rel Bird of Prey Scout, or a K'Vort Bird of Prey Cruiser. Yes, Birds of Prey came in Cruiser size.

These are the dimensions as given by a Star Trek Technical Manual for the two ship classes:

Length, 157.76 meters; beam, 181.54 meters; height, 98.54 meters (B'rel).
Length, 678.36 meters; beam, 780.62 meters; height, 423.72 meters (K'Vort) (please note this is comparable size to a Galaxy Class Starship).

So, arguably, if you don't want to concede that the H.M.S. Bounty was as small as the Defiant due to being a B'rel (which it was), then we can go ahead and re-classify it to being a K'vort which used the same blueprint as the B'rel but was approximately three times as big.

The two classes of ships could perhaps explain why you are confused about the size differences within the Bird of Prey Archetype?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Again, the evidence is seen on screen. You just need to look at the article, and look at the differences in the silver parts with the wings up, and the wings down. The bladed parts clearly fold into one-another; it's not just something STO does. Here's another article that has good images of the Birds-of-Prey with their wings up:
http://www.suricatafx.com/?p=274
The Evidence that the Article you are quoting is using is evidence drawn from ignorance. That ignorance being that there are in fact two virtually identical ships when viewed from a distance, but when viewed close up or while on the ground, these ships are in fact of very different sizes. That would explain why he is getting different results with size comparison. Different size ships that look identical will return different size profiles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
The B'rel itself was shown in Star Trek IV alone as being as small as 50 meters long, and as large as 300 meters. Note the scene where the ship is hovering above the whaling boat, versus a scene on Vulcan where people are walking around the ship as it's landed -- both shots have people in them, at incredibly different sizes.
Okay, admittedly I can't explain that issue away. Was probably an issue of logistics rather than an actual admittance of the ship having a different size from one scene to the next. It would be rather difficult to film a life size representation of a ship large enough to comfortably house 2 humpback whales for several hours in a Back Lot at Hollywood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
Also, the technical manuals that you refer to were third-party publications, and have often had to make a best guess about some things. They're apocryphal at best.
Are you 100% certain about the technical manuals I am referring to specifically? There are canonical technical manuals, just as there are apocryphal ones as well. So the trick is weeding out the apocryphal ones from the canonical ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thratch1 View Post
How is this still a debate. Please just read the article before coming back.
It is not my job to read an article written by someone who is not part of the production cast of Star Trek. Just as it is not your job to view images not produced by the Star Trek Production Crew. I am sure we can both agree on that at least. Thus it is the apparent conundrum that we are both going to have to find sources for this debate which are canonical. Unfortunately the closest I have come to that is Memory Alpha which is largely regarded as the official Star Trek Wiki site.
______________________________

Last edited by helixsunbringer; 02-08-2013 at 11:56 PM.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
# 85
02-09-2013, 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by helixsunbringer View Post
Are you 100% certain about the technical manuals I am referring to specifically? There are canonical technical manuals, just as there are apocryphal ones as well. So the trick is weeding out the apocryphal ones from the canonical ones.
Official, canon sources are pretty much limited to production bibles, as technical manuals and encyclopedias are almost always third-party publications, and must be taken with a grain of salt (as even the technical manuals to which you refer often change starship specifications between editions).

Quote:
It is not my job to read an article written by someone who is not part of the production cast of Star Trek. Just as it is not your job to view images not produced by the Star Trek Production Crew. I am sure we can both agree on that at least. Thus it is the apparent conundrum that we are both going to have to find sources for this debate which are canonical. Unfortunately the closest I have come to that is Memory Alpha which is largely regarded as the official Star Trek Wiki site.
The best evidence is on-screen evidence... and in actual fact, the bird-of-prey we see in the films as the HMS Bounty is only ever referred to as "Bird of Prey class" in Star Trek III, never B'rel. We also see wildly different sizes for the ship in the same movie (Star Trek IV)... which by itself proves my point that the ship's size is wildly inconsistent.

The only ship named as a B'rel appears on-screen in an episode of TNG ("Rascals"), and in this case is closer to the 300m size seen throughout TNG than the 100m size seen in Star Trek III.

As far as Memory Alpha being the "official" Star Trek Wiki site, it's still edited and maintained by fans, not production staff, and therefore only secondhand canon. It's a great source still, since they often cite where they get their information from, but ultimately it's almost the exact same thing as Ex Astris Scientia: the work of very devoted fans.

Last edited by thratch1; 02-09-2013 at 12:23 AM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 144
# 86
02-09-2013, 12:24 AM
A balance system should be based paper, scissor, rock.

Escorts should have the edge about cruisers, because they are fast, mobile and deal alot of damage.

Science ships should be able to take out the movement advantage, so that escorts become easy targets (no defense).

However, cruiser should be able to "repair" or "counter" most of the effects of science ships.

This would lead to a cycle.

Currently, science abilities are to easy countered by escorts (e.g. AP-O). This should be removed.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,228
# 87
02-09-2013, 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by disposeableh3r0 View Post

Plus the klingons might stop complaining about the bop being weak. And we all want the klingons to shut up....all that spitting just to say hi.

Nice one LOL. Made me giggle.

As a tactical escort pilot, I am beginning to share the author's sentiment.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 88
02-09-2013, 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wirtdd View Post
The escorts are not OP. The cruisers are useless, that is the problem.
Almost, some cruisers are simply badly designed, but more often than not the real problem is the players. They refuse to learn to fly their ships insisting instead the game change to suit what THEIR vision of how it "should be". Its both funny and sad sometimes.

So many of the strongest voices saying that cruisers are UP would rather tear their heart out than to accept they will need to make some changes y will need to do something really basic like maxing out their weapon power setting. Nooooo, they want to be unkillable, do lots of ubermax damage and not have to worry about constantly moving like a chicken with its head cut off.
Captain
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,738
# 89
02-09-2013, 01:07 AM
I made Dilithium farmers in Escorts with tac characters

I run 3 maybe 4 stfs per character to max out my Dilithium at 8000 , Mostly infected then switch to the next,'' Infected'' switch to the next on and on.

Tac characters in escorts do so much DPS the STfs are easy to run as Farmers


Science and engineers, DPS is too low with the same level of equipment to use

Trinity is Un Star trek doesnt work and will never work in a space game especially this one

Cruisers and science need more dPS in PVE

Add or move 1 Tac console and remove 1 engineering console and things will be a lot closer to being right on cruisers and science ships without changing anything else

Every cruiser and science ship would gain 1 tac console and lose 1 engineering ( cruiser )
1 science console (Science)

DPS is king in PvE
Jellico....Engineer.....Stargazer KDF Tac
Saphire.. Science.....Ko'el Rom Kdf Tac
Leva........Tactical.....Mailu KDF Sci

JJ-Verse will never be Canon or considered Lore...It will always be JJ-Verse
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,691
# 90
02-09-2013, 01:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellico1 View Post
Add or move 1 Tac console and remove 1 engineering console and things will be a lot closer to being right on cruisers and science ships without changing anything else

Every cruiser and science ship would gain 1 tac console and lose 1 engineering ( cruiser )
1 science console (Science)
I think this is a very easy to implement idea that would have a direct and instantly visible effect. All too often cruisers stack resistances to levels they don't really need if they are willing to have a more involved playstyle.

I would still add +1 turning to fed cruisers though; its a QoL issue at this point considering most players won't want to change their builds to something that would boost turning.
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 09:22 AM.