Shared technology base?
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
No one's suggested they have the same casing. You suggested that torpedoes are by their definition cylindrical, which they are demonstrably not.
As for variation in torpedos. 1) Dominion, do appear to bear a visual similarity to tri-cobalt devices from Voyager but they once again function almost identically. 2) I seem to recall the weapon the Sona used was some subspace thing. Definitely different from almost any other torpedo we've seen. Conspicuous in its uniqueness. 3) I can't recall the Tellarians and DITL draws a blank too.
As for variation in torpedos. 1) Dominion, do appear to bear a visual similarity to tri-cobalt devices from Voyager but they once again function almost identically. 2) I seem to recall the weapon the Sona used was some subspace thing. Definitely different from almost any other torpedo we've seen. Conspicuous in its uniqueness. 3) I can't recall the Tellarians and DITL draws a blank too.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Shared technology base?
I think that's a reference to the Talarians of TNG: "Suddenly Human," which Talarians used (IIRC) x-ray lasers and rocketpropelled missiles.Tyyr wrote:I can't recall the Tellarians and DITL draws a blank too.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
Canon wise the only thing I'm seeing are the energy weapons. The missile is DITL speculation.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Shared technology base?
Hmm. Didn't check the DITL write-up. I thought it was mentioned in the ep, but it's been a LONG time.Tyyr wrote:Canon wise the only thing I'm seeing are the energy weapons. The missile is DITL speculation.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
It's been a long time since I've seen it as well. It might have been but I don't remember. I went off the DITL color code.
Re: Shared technology base?
Didn't we see borg torpedoes, which were missile shaped. Or maybe that was another race... IDR
- Lighthawk
- Rear Admiral
- Posts: 4632
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 7:55 pm
- Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe
Re: Shared technology base?
On an individual level, no there isn't. On a group level though, there is a lot of room for different styles and tactics. Pretty much everything I recall in trek as far as tactics go is "Run into room/area where bad guys are, start shooting, take cover if they shoot back"Sionnach Glic wrote:Why should there be differences in fighting styles? There's not much variation on "point gun, pull trigger" that you can get.Lighthawk wrote:Where there should be.
I'm not trying to say I want weird and oddly shaped weapons (God, the Ferengi energy whips were painful to see), but I'd have liked to see some tangable differences between the different race's firearm results. EVERY firearm hit in trek was just like every other, save for stuns and vaporizations.The real difference should lie in tactical doctrine. Some species may favour masses of heavy armour, while another may favour small independant squads of troops. For the former species you'd expect a lot of anti-tank weapons to be in use, and for the latter you'd expect rapid-fire weapons. But the design on the weapons themselves would have no reason to change.
A fair point.Aye, but there are far more differences in physiology between members of the Conenant than between the various AQ races. If all the Covenant races looked mostly the same, there'd be very little variation in weapons.Lighthawk wrote:Sorry, had to get that out. Anyway, point taken, though I still think they could have done just a little more to add a bit of flavor to the weapons. Lets take Halo for example. The Covenant is a great example of a range of different weapon types based on the different aliens that use them. Compare the plasma rifle to the brute shot, I rather think the differences in the weapons nicely matches the personalities of the species that normally weilds it.
Just a bit of variety would have been nice.I agree, it would be nice to see some species perhaps foccussing more on raw firepower than accuracy, for example.Lighthawk wrote:I think it would have been a nice touch if say, Klingon disruptors were shown to be high powered, rugged, yet inaccurate weapons compared to Romulan disruptors.
I really don't see how the turrets allowed for any greater of a firing arc. The shape of the station is such that there really isn't much of it to get in the way of it's own guns, save for the docking pylons. (Speaking of which, it's rather odd that they put the phaser turrets at the joints of the pylons, where as much of the structure as possible could be in the way.)Because the station itself would take too long to rotate for a fixed emplacement to aim at an enemy vessel. Starships, being more maneouverable, can afford to have the weapons fixed in place.Lighthawk wrote:Okay, so then why did DS9 have turrets?
Wouldn't it have been much easier and allowed a much greater range of fire to just lay some phaser strips along the upper and lower side of the "wheel", as well as around the outer edge? You couldn't get much more of a firing arc than that.
Are you kidding, I just got a new fridge and it's nothing like the old one save for being a big box with a hyped up A/C in it.Refridgerators?Lighthawk wrote:Knew that was coming. Yeah, we don't know exactly what is needed for a functioning transporter. But let me ask you this, can you name a piece of common day equipment that's found in most 1st and 2nd world countries that has almost no deviantion between models?
Not knowing the exact mechanics of a transporter, I can't argue that isn't the case.What I was getting at was that the design of the transporter may be required. If the design was indeed required, you'd expect them all to look the same.
-
- Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 35635
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
- Commendations: The Daystrom Award
- Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
- Contact:
Re: Shared technology base?
Which is really the determinant, isn't it? Anything else is a purely academic point.Lighthawk wrote:being a big box with a hyped up A/C in it.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
-
- 4 Star Admiral
- Posts: 26014
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:58 pm
- Location: Poblacht na hÉireann, Baile Átha Cliath
Re: Shared technology base?
Exactly my point - they all have the same (terrible) tactics.Lighthawk wrote: On an individual level, no there isn't. On a group level though, there is a lot of room for different styles and tactics. Pretty much everything I recall in trek as far as tactics go is "Run into room/area where bad guys are, start shooting, take cover if they shoot back"
Aye, I see what you're getting at.Lighthawk wrote:I'm not trying to say I want weird and oddly shaped weapons (God, the Ferengi energy whips were painful to see), but I'd have liked to see some tangable differences between the different race's firearm results. EVERY firearm hit in trek was just like every other, save for stuns and vaporizations.
Well, we were talking about torpedoes, not phasers. I said that the reason the torps were in turrets on DS9 rather than built into fixed emplacements like in ships was probably due to the impracticality of trying to turn something as big as DS9, requiring turrets to make torps usable.Lighthawk wrote:I really don't see how the turrets allowed for any greater of a firing arc. The shape of the station is such that there really isn't much of it to get in the way of it's own guns, save for the docking pylons. (Speaking of which, it's rather odd that they put the phaser turrets at the joints of the pylons, where as much of the structure as possible could be in the way.)
Wouldn't it have been much easier and allowed a much greater range of fire to just lay some phaser strips along the upper and lower side of the "wheel", as well as around the outer edge? You couldn't get much more of a firing arc than that.
As you yourself just pointed out, they all run on the same machinery. Everything else is just to make it stand out in a showroom and make it look nice. For a piece of military machinery such as the transporters we see, there'd be no need for those differences. Thus they'd look the same.Lighthawk wrote: Are you kidding, I just got a new fridge and it's nothing like the old one save for being a big box with a hyped up A/C in it.
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
Re: Shared technology base?
Cylindrical is any shape that has circular cross sections. Circular includes any shape that can be made using a compass. Therefore, the PT's are indeed cylindrical, and so is any other torpedo in history (though I have no idea about all of fiction).Tyyr wrote:No one's suggested they have the same casing. You suggested that torpedoes are by their definition cylindrical, which they are demonstrably not.
And its definition (at least the applicable one):
As for the Talarian rockets, I'd have to watch the episode again to see if they were seen/mentioned.A cigar-shaped, self-propelled underwater projectile launched from a submarine, aircraft, or ship and designed to detonate on contact with or in the vicinity of a target.
Hmm, their function is to blown something up, and they are somehow (we don't know for sure) self propelled. Great similarities. I guess a V2 and a sidewinder function identically too.but they once again function almost identically.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
stitch626 wrote:Cylindrical is any shape that has circular cross sections. Circular includes any shape that can be made using a compass. Therefore, the PT's are indeed cylindrical, and so is any other torpedo in history (though I have no idea about all of fiction).
Not cylindrical.
So are you just being dense on purpose? Similar velocities, appearance, sizes, effect, performance, etc. If there were some large torpedos, some small ones, some ridiculously fast, others slow but smart, etc. then you'd be right. However there's no significant differences between them.Hmm, their function is to blown something up, and they are somehow (we don't know for sure) self propelled. Great similarities. I guess a V2 and a sidewinder function identically too.
Re: Shared technology base?
Ignoring that the torp in STXI, ignoring the larger borg torps and larger dominion torps and possibly others (though I dont have time ATM to check every episode), yes you are correct then.So are you just being dense on purpose? Similar velocities, appearance, sizes, effect, performance, etc. If there were some large torpedos, some small ones, some ridiculously fast, others slow but smart, etc. then you'd be right. However there's no significant differences between them.
As for different performance (ie damage) we have no information suggesting it to be either different or the same. At least not any numbers. we can make guesses, but they'd be just that, guesses.
Oh, and the image doesn't come up, so can't say anything about it.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
Look up photon torpdeo. Every single federation torpedo we've ever seen is not cylindrical.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/trekn ... logy-p.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/trekn ... logy-p.htm
Re: Shared technology base?
If you take the cross section of them over a good portion of the length, it is the same oval. Hence, they are cylindrical. Because they are capped at the ends and do not have circular cross sections, they are not perfect cylinders, but they are still cylindrical.
As for another weapon that was different, the original spacial torps of ENT.
As for another weapon that was different, the original spacial torps of ENT.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
-
- 3 Star Admiral
- Posts: 10654
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
- Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh
Re: Shared technology base?
You know what, point conceded, it is roughly an elliptical cylinder. That said there's still nothing that requires a torpedo to be a cylinder of any kind.