trek-physic

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:19 pm

i'm going to assume your last statement was sardonic.

i mentioned rare turns, the rare turns are the good ones, slow majestic turns, like in fleet ops. i like these better.

the majority of canon trek physics are like vanilla a2, while these are canon, they are not as good as fleet ops.

your sarcastic comment that "turn on a dime" is not canon is incorrect, as it happens nearly all the time in canon trek. canon is worse than fleet ops, but it is still canon and your statement is still incorrect.

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:33 pm

I agree on that. As Star Trek relies heavily on visuals, "cool" prevails over "realistic". I do recall the Ent-D doing hard turns that shouldn't be possible in more than one episode. The one mentioned is the one where Ent-D gets trapped in a temporal loop and it gets blown up over and over. I don't remember the episode's name.

It's the same as (heressy!) in canon Star Wars. The Executor does a hard turn that, when calculated with "real" physics formulas, gives the amazing answer that the turn was performed at relativistic speeds, that is, quite close to the speed of light.

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:36 pm

cause and effect is the name, lovely episode. riker's idea actually saved the day, that in itself is beyond belief.

[Dave Denton]

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:40 pm

Last edited by Dave Denton on March 6th, 2010, 11:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

  Alright, where is the proof? I want the technical data that claims what you are saying here, alongside with the videos of these superfast REGULAR turns. Note that some ships make a full turn in less than a second. Very canon indeed.

    Also it's funny how you cover your arse by saying that canon physics are not as good as the ones that are in Fleet Operations. Fact to the matter is that I love what they did in Fleet Operations, I have nothing against that.

  If cool prevails over realistic, then there is only one thing that you guys could do: play Mario Bros and Space Invaders. 

  Star Wars is 100% screwed up, really no point in even mentioning any facts from that ....place.

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:49 pm

Aren't you being a little... antagonistic?

@myleswolfers
Thanks for the episode name. It's indeed "cause and effect".


Contrary to what we feel, actual space combat, and much less space battles, are very quite uncommon in TNG. DS9 was more action-packed, and still, I'd say it's more for the amount of ships involved in the battles than for the actual amount of battles, too.

ST is not SW.

I cannot name specific episodes from the top of my head, sorry. The only one I can remember is "The best of both worlds".

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:55 pm

Yeah, and I'm from Coruscant.

[mimesot]

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:57 pm

Last edited by mimesot on March 7th, 2010, 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Please leave your sarcasm at home, thanks 

Realistic vs. vs. Fleetops vs. StarTrek:

Realistic: A ship's acceleration depends on the energy output per mass.
FO: A ship's max velocity depends mainly on the ships size or offense for balance.
StarTrek: A ships acceleration is irrelevant, every ship is capable of full impulse.

For me i believe FO makes a good compromise at physis, still, acceleration calues could be highly more diverse.

posted on March 6th, 2010, 11:58 pm

@dave poking angry ppl is funny

remember emissary, the flashback to wolf 359, we see some fast moves there from an ambassador.

in tears of the prophets we see a galaxy and a sabre make moves together going after the platforms.

look at the enterprise E and valdore in nemesis and to a lesser degree in first contact, pretty fast, in insurrection it did the attack on rofl's ship.

i'm not bothered finding videos, go youtube it.

[Dave Denton]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:05 am

Last edited by Dave Denton on March 7th, 2010, 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

        Did I said something about Saber Class vessels?  small vessels can turn as they please.
You guys are funny on how are you trying to prove cheesy Hollywood style physics. 
  And if you make a statement, at least get your fingers and find a video of these superfast regular turns and the technical data for it. So far you guys showed nothing.

  Go search something you mention? It's like sending me to find proof for your own ideas.

[Myles]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:07 am

Last edited by Myles on March 7th, 2010, 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

obviously you did not read clearly, so i'll slow down:

the galaxy class (USS galaxy in this case) was doing moves WITH the sabre class, keeping up with it while blowing up orbital weapons platforms.

EDIT: i'm not trying to say anything about trek physics, thats a totally different discussion.

i'm correcting your error that trek physics are like fleet ops, they're not, they're like vanilla a2. whether thats got or bad, or i like it or not is completely pointless, its what happened in trek.

EDIT: how about you show us some of your technical data? i'm going to assume you have none. if you cant remember important battles from trek you should go youtube them, dont expect me to waste my time schooling you.

[Dave Denton]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:16 am

Last edited by Dave Denton on March 7th, 2010, 12:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

  Hah, very cheap way of getting out of an discussion. Show you technical data? There is none that points to what you say. That's why I asked you about it in the first place. But you're way to oblivious to see 2 cm in front of your nose.
Ohh, so you get to decide what belongs to a discussion and what does not? very clever.
  Yet another sneaky way of weaseling out.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:19 am

"Cheesy Hollywood style physics" is canon physics, both in Star Wars and Star Trek. There are differences in how they both handle the "cheesiness" factor, but when you get down to it, it's simply unreallistic. Visually cool, though.

[Myles]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:22 am

Last edited by Myles on March 7th, 2010, 12:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

@dave: your hypocrisy makes my head itch.

you say i have no evidence, i accuse you of exactly the same! you say no evidence points to what i say, i gave you several examples where there is evidence, dont believe me, go rent nemesis and watch the enterprise do exactly what i said it does.

dont expect me to school you or hold your hand with youtube videos, my time is spent better sleeping. its not rocket (or warp) science to find a youtube video of the battles from nemesis.

now i'm going to spend my time doing that thing i just mentioned.

EDIT: the discussion is guided by your incorrect statement in an earlier post, YOU said that canon physics is like fleet ops, i am responding to that incorrect claim. if you want to have a discussion about whether canon trek physics are better or worse than fleet ops physics, go start a new thread. i weasel out of nothing, i back out of no argument. as i said i respond only to your incorrect claim, if you want to discuss the qualities/issues of canon trek physics then start a thread tomorrow and i'll happily chime in.

[Dave Denton]

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:27 am

Last edited by Dave Denton on March 7th, 2010, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

  Is that all you have to say? Was to be expected actually.
Search for something you claim? You must be nuts then.
  I really don't care what are your accusations are, read your own posts first. They speak for themselves.

posted on March 7th, 2010, 12:30 am

Is this actually going somewhere?