|
Starship Dimensions...for all the sci-fi geeks out there (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yohan |
The pic you posted is Enterprise E (Sovereign class), not Enterprise D (Galaxy class)
I hate all this sci fi starship comparisons. Like, it's ing fiction for FFS. How do you make a comparison? (Star Trek vs Star Wars always amuses me)
And even a lot of 'canon' facts for series contradict each other. (ie Jem Hadar fighter that'd take like 15 quantum torpedoes in one fight, but in another fight gets blown up after one phaser hit)
edit: ah. I see what you did with the scaling thing... you were suppose to talk about galaxy class, not sovereign class :p
here's a good link to size comparison of various starships from sci fi shows
http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png |
|
|
| Yohan |
 |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
(Star Trek vs Star Wars always amuses me) |
Always bugs me too - they're completely different things. Comparing them on the same merits outside of a "I personally prefer A to B" sense is pretty absurd to me. |
|
|
| Yohan |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Always bugs me too - they're completely different things. Comparing them on the same merits outside of a "I personally prefer A to B" sense is pretty absurd to me. |
Yeah. Considering SW is really fantasy in space, at least from the beginning. No real basis on actual science what so ever, and whatever scientific basis is put together mainly from fandom and from novelizations. (which is kinda amusing since some of the 'science' of SW is based upon X wing PC game)
At least Star Trek is created from some sort of basis on science. (even if they goof up after while and 'hard' science of Star Trek isn't really established until the Next Generation) |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
You're all nerds.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...Super Star Destroyer FTW. |
|
|
| Beat Blog |
:wtf:
:stongue:
:nervous:
Who the hell wastes their time putting this together? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
Yeah. Considering SW is really fantasy in space, at least from the beginning. No real basis on actual science what so ever, and whatever scientific basis is put together mainly from fandom and from novelizations. (which is kinda amusing since some of the 'science' of SW is based upon X wing PC game)
At least Star Trek is created from some sort of basis on science. (even if they goof up after while and 'hard' science of Star Trek isn't really established until the Next Generation) |
I really like them both (well, only TNG and DS9 as far as ST is concerned), but they aren't even remotely similar when it comes to the way the universe is perceived.
I think you're right to call SW more "Science Fantasy" than "Science Fiction" - the focus was on traditional character archetypes used in classic mythology which was all just veiled in this subtly futuristic universe where we aren't mean to understand the details regarding how the universe arrived at the point they were at.
Star Trek, on the other hand, seems to have just the opposite feel. Strong emphasis on the historical lineage of events that led to the founding of the Federation and the string of events leading up and encompassing the creation of the Enterprise and it's explorations. Much higher emphasis on the technical details.
Wow. I am a ing nerd and a half. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
I really like them both (well, only TNG and DS9 as far as ST is concerned), but they aren't even remotely similar when it comes to the way the universe is perceived.
I think you're right to call SW more "Science Fantasy" than "Science Fiction" - the focus was on traditional character archetypes used in classic mythology which was all just veiled in this subtly futuristic universe where we aren't mean to understand the details regarding how the universe arrived at the point they were at.
Star Trek, on the other hand, seems to have just the opposite feel. Strong emphasis on the historical lineage of events that led to the founding of the Federation and the string of events leading up and encompassing the creation of the Enterprise and it's explorations. Much higher emphasis on the technical details.
Wow. I am a ing nerd and a half. |
How do you feel about B5 Rob? |
|
|
| 3F05Q |
| quote: | Originally posted by Project-K
Sweet, they even have the sathanas from freespace 2
Love it when you spend half the game trying to destroy just one of the sathanas and then at the end a whole fleet of them pops up, made my my pants. :nervous: |
Seriously. That game was epic. I'm actually playing through it again right now. |
|
|
| Cloudburst |
I wanted to see some asgard ships in there. :(
I couldn't find any Dune ships either, even though that would be kinda hard. :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| holy they have robotech ships in there, awesome. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
At least Star Trek is created from some sort of basis on science. (even if they goof up after while and 'hard' science of Star Trek isn't really established until the Next Generation) |
*yawns*
that's precisely why star trek sucked when compared to shows like B5, and the new BSG. i still enjoyed parts of the next gen tho.
"reversing the power coupling to retro aid the gamma particle accelerator" = heroes save the day. who gives a ?
and at the start of each new episode everyone is back to their awesome selves again. no plot and little character development. |
|
|
|
|
