www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote: How the f**k do you propose we analyse starships' capabilities without treating the live-action series as documentary footage? Make it up as we go along?

Basically yes. Common sense comes into play. We know a Galaxy class ship can easily take on a Galor. We do see that. Reading any more into that is beyond what the visuals were meant to indicate. Reading more into a scene like that, exact distance, speeds, ect. go beyond what we can reasonably expect to get out of it. That means there are many questions as to what exactly a ship can do. We only get those answers when and if they are presented to us by the people who write and make the Trek Universe. Then they might not be more the "this ship goes very fast". As I said, we don't have absolute knowledge of the Trek Universe. It is in the end what we each make of it.

1) You're ignoring TOS
2) We saw a couple of GCSes take on a Galor in SoA. It took just as long (i.e. a couple of shots) as the Phoenix took.

Weapons and shields powers did not change over time? We know all the variables when it comes to the event in SoA? No.

No, they don't. Such basic rules of logical debate shouldn't need to be spelt out.

That is why of all the Trek sites I've visited I've heard suspension of disbelief touted as an absolute hear and one other place.

Because...you say so?

....because of its many short comings. You know allowing one FX mistake to now total change the way something's is viewed. Causing main character to seem like drooling morons. Generally make thing more difficult to explain then needed.

It's doesn't mean we have no way of looking at Trek, this is true. It does mean we have no way of analyzing the capabilities of the ships from an IU perspective.

So for analyzing capabilities of ships it is all or nothing? No not by a long shot. We know a lot about what some ship can do, but our knowledge is incomplete because we are not told everything. We know that a Galaxy can destroy a Galor, we don't know how much power each shot from the Galaxy had or how exactly how the Galors shields and hull responded to those individual shots. Nor do we know the range of those hits, unless told, other then it looks far away.

When we're analyzing capabilities - range, speed, firepower - yes there is

Only if you want to try and add more then is really there.

No, we don't have to - we can look at it from a purely artistic perspective. However, since we're analyzing capabilities, the scientific method is required.

Deductions from inaccurate data lead to inaccurate results. You do not know for a fact that visuals are to be taken as absolutely correct. You are stating that is how you are taking them, but if you are not correct then any results you get from them are also suspect.

Captain Seafort wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:Graham did not have evidence? Of course he did. It tended to contradict what the visuals show. That is the argument.

Actually, none of it contradicted the visuals. The gist of it was that since weapons can hit targets at tens of thousands of kilometres, the battles must take place at that sort of range. This is incorrect - the weapons do have that sort of range, but that doesn't change the fact that the battles are usually fought at ranges of a few km or less.

...and then the discussion moved to why. It could be ECM/ECCM issues, it could be accuracy and power issues, or the visuals could be wrong for some of what we see. You know in those instances were we hear character call out ranges but the visuals look much smaller.


Personally I like the idea that weapons like phasers lose power over distance. Torpedoes while we see them hit at long ranges does not mean they always will hit at those ranges, especially when the target is maneuvering.

Reliant121 wrote:I don't think I have ever seen Graham as engaged in a debate in the entirety of the time I have been on this forum.

He doesn't get in debates all that often recently, but he's gotten stuck into his fair share or arguments before. Check some of the earlier debates on the forum and Graham's quite prominant in them. In particular, check the old TR-116 thread. That was the first "real" debate on the site, and Graham was most certainly there.
It's also interesting to see how people's posting styles have changed since the Early Days.

On another note, I'm bowing out of the debate. Graham's agreed that his idea of longer combat ranges is based primarily on a subjective sense of "that doesn't really make sense" and that the visuals do indeed show closer ranges. Anything after that is just a debate on subjective preferences of viewing the show itself which I've no interest in getting involved in.

m52nickerson wrote:Basically yes. Common sense comes into play.

So common sense dictates that starships fight at thousands of km, even though we see them fighting at half a dozen km?

We know a Galaxy class ship can easily take on a Galor. We do see that. Reading any more into that is beyond what the visuals were meant to indicate. Reading more into a scene like that, exact distance, speeds, ect. go beyond what we can reasonably expect to get out of it.

We can't get exact measurements, but we can get them within a order of magnitude.

That means there are many questions as to what exactly a ship can do. We only get those answers when and if they are presented to us by the people who write and make the Trek Universe. Then they might not be more the "this ship goes very fast". As I said, we don't have absolute knowledge of the Trek Universe. It is in the end what we each make of it.

If you want to hold forth on how you envisage Star Trek as a TV show, fair enough. Don't try and mix it up with IU analysis though.

Weapons and shields powers did not change over time?

For changes in power to have the effect you propose they'd have to get massively weaker.

We know all the variables when it comes to the event in SoA?

Of course not, but if you're suggesting that the differences were significant enough to render the comparison useless the burden of proof is on you.

That is why of all the Trek sites I've visited I've heard suspension of disbelief touted as an absolute hear and one other place.

Have any of the other sites you've been to done anything like the sort of analysis done here?

...because of its many short comings. You know allowing one FX mistake to now total change the way something's is viewed.

Not if there's sufficient evidence to discount it (such as the Darmok phaser).

Causing main character to seem like drooling morons.

Their actions do that well enough on their own, without the need to bring visuals into it.

Generally make thing more difficult to explain then needed.

Why don't we say "God Q did it" for every single event in the show? That's as lazy easy as you can get.

So for analyzing capabilities of ships it is all or nothing? No not by a long shot. We know a lot about what some ship can do, but our knowledge is incomplete because we are not told everything. We know that a Galaxy can destroy a Galor, we don't know how much power each shot from the Galaxy had or how exactly how the Galors shields and hull responded to those individual shots.

All irrelevant. If the issue is one of comparison then the absolute strength of the weapons is irrelevant.

Nor do we know the range of those hits, unless told, other then it looks far away.

In "The Wounded" we know the range was 300,000km because it was stated. In SoA we know the range was just a few km because we can calculate it based on the ratio of the apparent relative sizes of the two ships to their actual relative sizes.

Only if you want to try and add more then is really there.

Not at all - we're simply calculating "what's there" based on the evidence provided.

Deductions from inaccurate data lead to inaccurate results. You do not know for a fact that visuals are to be taken as absolutely correct.

We take the visuals as accurate unless there's strong evidence that they're not, under suspension of disbelief.

You are stating that is how you are taking them, but if you are not correct then any results you get from them are also suspect.

And as someone's sig says, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Common sense, really. We know the ships can fly at close to light speed. We know the ships can fire across hundreds of thousands of km. We know the weapon yields can range up into many megatons, at least.

Correct. We also know that, with the sole exception of "The Wounded" all post-TWoK combat occurs at ranges of a few kilometres or less.

If we accept the FX.

Why? I'd be interested to know if you've got a link to an interview in which one of the producers states this, because a) unless such a statement exists the claim is pure speculation and b) TOS battles are anything but boring, despite not having both ships in the same shot.

I recall a quote by Nicholas Meyer to the effect that he went for a combat model as close to wooden sailing ships as he could. Hence the "running out the guns" scene of prepping the torpedo launchers, and hence putting the final combat in a nebula where the ships could be in far closer than you would ever expect them to be. Don't have a link to it, though. But I don't think it's a real stretch to say that the FX of the show are designed to look cool rather than being realistic.

As for TOS battles, there aren't too many of them to pick from, but very few of them stand out as exciting battles because of the effects. Balance of Terror is the classic example; strip it of the "thinking man's combat" aspect and it would be a pretty unspectacular affair largely consisting of shots of the Enterprise firing and explosions in deep space.

Technobabble solutions are preferable to ignoring the razor, and make no mistake - claiming that all visuals of short-range combat must be wrong, despite having only tenuous evidence of a very few cases, is multiply entities unnecessarily. You're adding a flaw in the IU filming process, whereas problems with the sensors, such as those I mentioned in my previous post, would just as easily explain the visuals.

I don't claim they must be wrong. What I said was, I prefer to think that they are.

The windows and the bridge are minor issues. The complete lack of computer security, and the abandonment of all engineering principles in the design of the warp core, are far more serious.

The computer one, possibly but I tend to discount it. The warp core, there's really no basis for claiming that "all engineering principles" have been abandoned when you really don't know what you're talking about.

All of which come from TOS, which suggests that something changed between then and TWoK. The most likely is that the ECM/ECCM balance swung towards ECM around that time, and stayed there for over a century.

And that's the real problem. As I've said, if you want to believe that explanation then feel free, but it is NOT "the most likely" explanation. It's simply the one that you've decided is the truth. I've already proposed a couple of others that are at least as good.

However, typical tactics for cloaked ships involve closing to within 3km, per Hero Worship.

Actually they said "consistent with", not "typical of".

You have, however, repeatedly stated your belief that the visuals are "wrong". We're pointing out that there's no need to assume such - ECM has been seen in use, and there are plenty of other things that can muck up sensors. There's nothing of the sort in supporting a conclusion that what we see on screen is inaccurate.

Nor is there any reason to suppose that ECM is in use on any of the occasions you reference. It's simply an arbitrary answer that you've made up.

We're not dismissing all other options out of hand. We're dismissing the "visuals must be wrong" option.

Exactly. And you're free to do so. But what you can't do is tell others that they must also.

Well, technically you can tell them. But they're perfectly free to ignore you.

Rochey wrote:

Reliant121 wrote:I don't think I have ever seen Graham as engaged in a debate in the entirety of the time I have been on this forum.

He doesn't get in debates all that often recently, but he's gotten stuck into his fair share or arguments before. Check some of the earlier debates on the forum and Graham's quite prominant in them. In particular, check the old TR-116 thread. That was the first "real" debate on the site, and Graham was most certainly there.
It's also interesting to see how people's posting styles have changed since the Early Days.

My favourite one was a big discussion (I don't really call them debates because that calls to mind the formal structured kind of thing) I got into about free will a while back. That actually reshaped my whole conception of that issue and made me seriously rethink what I even meant by the term.

Funnily enough, I don't really remember being in the TR-116 thread at all. Too long ago.

On another note, I'm bowing out of the debate. Graham's agreed that his idea of longer combat ranges is based primarily on a subjective sense of "that doesn't really make sense" and that the visuals do indeed show closer ranges. Anything after that is just a debate on subjective preferences of viewing the show itself which I've no interest in getting involved in.

Was nice talking about it with you.

GrahamKennedy wrote:If we accept the FX...I don't claim they must be wrong. What I said was, I prefer to think that they are.

And why shouldn't we? Flawed VFX introduces an additional entity, which should be rejected per the razor.

I recall a quote by Nicholas Meyer to the effect that he went for a combat model as close to wooden sailing ships as he could. Hence the "running out the guns" scene of prepping the torpedo launchers, and hence putting the final combat in a nebula where the ships could be in far closer than you would ever expect them to be. Don't have a link to it, though. But I don't think it's a real stretch to say that the FX of the show are designed to look cool rather than being realistic.

I would say that that goes the other way - he's specifically stating that the ships were that close together, and came up with an excuse to do it.

As for TOS battles, there aren't too many of them to pick from, but very few of them stand out as exciting battles because of the effects. Balance of Terror is the classic example; strip it of the "thinking man's combat" aspect and it would be a pretty unspectacular affair largely consisting of shots of the Enterprise firing and explosions in deep space.

Maybe not for having pretty VFX, but I certainly got much more of an "oh shit" feeling from seeing the E-nil hanging at an odd angle with its lights out in BoT than anything in TNG+ Trek. Plus the quick cuts between the E-nil and its target added pace while still allowing the course of the battle to be followed (unlike the DS9 actions or the nBSG nonsense).

The computer one, possibly but I tend to discount it.

With that one we've got canon proof that a few proficient hackers could wreak havoc with a Fed ship - Distant Origin.

The warp core, there's really no basis for claiming that "all engineering principles" have been abandoned when you really don't know what you're talking about.

I don't. Mike Wong does, and that's who I derive most of my GCS engineering arguments from. If a professional engineer says it ignores engineering principles, I'm willing to go along with that.

And that's the real problem. As I've said, if you want to believe that explanation then feel free, but it is NOT "the most likely" explanation. It's simply the one that you've decided is the truth. I've already proposed a couple of others that are at least as good.

They're theories that, while certainly meriting investigation, don't stand up to said investigation. If weapons power decreased with range then why was the Phoenix just as effective in The Wounded as the two GCSes were in SoA? If it was targeting problems full stop, then why do they only seem to turn up in battle? ECM explains this.

Actually they said "consistent with", not "typical of".

Fair enough. It is nonetheless a common tactic of cloaked ships (rather than striking from extreme range), otherwise they'd have been scratching their heads rather than immediately thing "cloaked ship".

Nor is there any reason to suppose that ECM is in use on any of the occasions you reference. It's simply an arbitrary answer that you've made up.

Hardly. We know that there are many different not-so-high-energy phenomena that disrupt sensors, many of which can be generated artificiality. We know that ships are capable of hitting targets from extremely long range, but almost never do so in combat. Therefore there is something unusual about ship-to-ship combat, and interference of some kind generated by the opposing ships seems the most probable difference - ergo ECM, either deliberate or accidental as a result of the ships' other combat related operations (shields, weapons fire, maybe even their own sensors).

GrahamKennedy wrote:Funnily enough, I don't really remember being in the TR-116 thread at all. Too long ago.

I remember it all right - it was you and me arguing about Borg drones and KE shields that TR-116'd the TR-116.

Flawed VFX introduces an additional entity, which should be rejected per the razor.

And so does ECM.


The Wounded was mentioned as disproof or weapon accuracy being limited at long ranges, but the sole usage of long range weapons in that episode was by the Pheonix, which had a huge sensor pod.

Kinda like the difference between a rifle with a scope and one without.

Captain Seafort wrote: So common sense dictates that starships fight at thousands of km, even though we see them fighting at half a dozen km?

Yes, because we know the ranges of the weapons and the speeds of the ships.

We can't get exact measurements, but we can get them within a order of magnitude.

Really?

If you want to hold forth on how you envisage Star Trek as a TV show, fair enough. Don't try and mix it up with IU analysis though.

I can and will. Once you totaly ignore that it is a TV show and look at IU without that thought in the back of your head it becomes almost impossible to make sense out of many things we see and hear.

For changes in power to have the effect you propose they'd have to get massively weaker.

Or one tech to get much better overtime then another.

Of course not, but if you're suggesting that the differences were significant enough to render the comparison useless the burden of proof is on you.

Well if you are talking about any type of scientific menthod they you would realise that if we don't know all the variables then any comparison would be little more then guess work.

Have any of the other sites you've been to done anything like the sort of analysis done here?

Yes.

Not if there's sufficient evidence to discount it (such as the Darmok phaser).

I would say any evidance with what we know about the lack of reliabilty when it come to FX.

Their actions do that well enough on their own, without the need to bring visuals into it.

Perhaps that is because you believe that you know better then they.

Why don't we say "God Q did it" for every single event in the show? That's as lazy easy as you can get.

Yes, lets go to the extreme.

All irrelevant. If the issue is one of comparison then the absolute strength of the weapons is irrelevant.

Really? So the absolute strenght which would be a major variable is not a factor?

In "The Wounded" we know the range was 300,000km because it was stated. In SoA we know the range was just a few km because we can calculate it based on the ratio of the apparent relative sizes of the two ships to their actual relative sizes.

Yes because ship sizes on screen are so very reliable.

Not at all - we're simply calculating "what's there" based on the evidence provided.

Evidence that is suspect to start with. Visuals are ment to look cool not be accurate.

We take the visuals as accurate unless there's strong evidence that they're not, under suspension of disbelief.

Yet another reason why suspension of disbelief is a horrible way of looking at things. You are putting trust into visuals that are suspect from the start and not mean to be accurate.

And as someone's sig says, if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.

So are you argeeing that your deductions are as suspect as the FX are?

stitch626 wrote:

Flawed VFX introduces an additional entity, which should be rejected per the razor.

And so does ECM.


The Wounded was mentioned as disproof or weapon accuracy being limited at long ranges, but the sole usage of long range weapons in that episode was by the Pheonix, which had a huge sensor pod.

Kinda like the difference between a rifle with a scope and one without.

...or it was an example of a good shot.

m52nickerson wrote:Yes, because we know the ranges of the weapons and the speeds of the ships.

And we also know the ranges they typically fight at - a few km.

Really?

Yep.

Once you totaly ignore that it is a TV show and look at IU without that thought in the back of your head it becomes almost impossible to make sense out of many things we see and hear.

You may find it impossible - those of us with brains have no such difficulties, as the huge number of analysis threads on this board demonstrates.

Or one tech to get much better overtime then another.

Well if you are talking about any type of scientific menthod they you would realise that if we don't know all the variables then any comparison would be little more then guess work.

We can analyse the available evidence, and draw our conclusions from that. If new contradictory evidence comes to light then we have to modify our theory based on it. It's not perfect, but neither is life.

I would say any evidance with what we know about the lack of reliabilty when it come to FX.

Which introduces an OOU aspect (the big no-no when analysing under SoD) and an unnecessary entity (which breaks the razor.

Perhaps that is because you believe that you know better then they.

I (along with anyone with a working brain) do.

Yes, lets go to the extreme.

Not at all - once you decide to accept or ignore IU information based on your own preference, you might as well throw out any pretence at rational analysis.

Really? So the absolute strenght which would be a major variable is not a factor?

Not at all - in both cases the ships involved were GCSes (or variants) and Galors. Therefore the only variable is range.

Yes because ship sizes on screen are so very reliable.

By and large, yes. There are obviously problem ships, such as the Defiant and DS9, and minor scaling issues that prevent us from calculating the range more accurately than an order of magnitude, but by and large ship's sizes are consistent enough to estimate ranges.

Evidence that is suspect to start with. Visuals are ment to look cool not be accurate.

Tough shit. The intent of the visuals is irrelevant - what matters is what they they depict.

Yet another reason why suspension of disbelief is a horrible way of looking at things. You are putting trust into visuals that are suspect from the start and not mean to be accurate.

Again, tough shit - unless you can provide very strong evidence that specific visuals are "wrong", they should be taken at face value.

So are you argeeing that your deductions are as suspect as the FX are?

No - I'm pointing out that the word "if" plays a huge part in your inane gibbering (as usual). You want to claim that specific visuals are "wrong"? Prove it.

Captain Seafort wrote: And we also know the ranges they typically fight at - a few km.

Again if you trust visuals that are in no means ment to be accurate.

You may find it impossible - those of us with brains have no such difficulties, as the huge number of analysis threads on this board demonstrates.

Really? How many weapons does the Scimitar have again? Why do ships not shoot the torpedos with their phasers since they are moving slow enough to do so? Why does the Defiant and DS9 keep changing sizes?

I do like how you resort it insults?

We can analyse the available evidence, and draw our conclusions from that. If new contradictory evidence comes to light then we have to modify our theory based on it. It's not perfect, but neither is life.

No it is not perfect. More so when we know the FX are not meant to be accurate, but to look good.

Which introduces an OOU aspect (the big no-no when analysing under SoD) and an unnecessary entity (which breaks the razor.

Yes, the Seafort debate style - SoD, razor, razor, SoD, insult, prove it, razor, SoD, insult, insult, Razor, SoD, prove it. Get off your high horse. Quoting SoD to someone who knows it is a crap way of looking at things is like quoting the bible to an Atheist.

I (along with anyone with a working brain) do.

I will be waiting for the new warp core or transporter system.

Not at all - once you decide to accept or ignore IU information based on your own preference, you might as well throw out any pretence at rational analysis.

The "all or nothing" logical fallacy again.

Not at all - in both cases the ships involved were GCSes (or variants) and Galors. Therefore the only variable is range.

Ships can't control the output of their weapons? The Galor in the battle had shields at 100% and was the exact same as the other one? There are a lot more variables that if we can't account for the determination we get is an educated guess at best.

By and large, yes. There are obviously problem ships, such as the Defiant and DS9, and minor scaling issues that prevent us from calculating the range more accurately than an order of magnitude, but by and large ship's sizes are consistent enough to estimate ranges.

The dominion battleship had a constant size? One reason that large ship sizes tend to seem more constant is because we use them as references to measure smaller ships. One can't know which ship is really the correct size, or if ether are.

Tough s**t. The intent of the visuals is irrelevant - what matters is what they they depict.

The general idea of what they depict, which would be part of there intent, is what matters. Such as ship A destroys ship B. Reading anymore into that when we know the visuals are meant to look cool, not be accurate, leads to faulty conclusions.

Again, tough s**t - unless you can provide very strong evidence that specific visuals are "wrong", they should be taken at face value.

Proof that the visuals should all be suspect at best comes from the numerous errors and the fact that they are not made to be accurate.

No - I'm pointing out that the word "if" plays a huge part in your inane gibbering (as usual). You want to claim that specific visuals are "wrong"? Prove it.

I'm saying they are suspect. Of course the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. So if you are going to claim that what the visuals show us is factually correct, please provide evidence to support that.

You see using SoD does not make ones analysis of Trek more valid then anyone else's. It is the content of the analysis the makes some better then others. Analysis that follows the intent of the shows creators should be preferred.

Captain Seafort wrote: I don't. Mike Wong does, and that's who I derive most of my GCS engineering arguments from. If a professional engineer says it ignores engineering principles, I'm willing to go along with that.

So Mike has been imparted with the knowledge of how exectly how the systems on an Galaxy class starship work? Wow, can't wait for the Wong warp ship to be launched.

Prfessional engineer or not, he has been given the same amount of limited infomation on how a ship in the Trek Universe works as the rest of us. So what ever his opinion is it is based on vary incomplete understanding.

I also find it hard to put stock in anyone who would knowingly use informations known not meant to be accurate to form conclutions.

@ m52 - I get it. You believe - as is your absolute right - to not view the show amidst an environment of SoD. Perfectly fine. It certainly does help when a question of this nature comes up. It can be satisfying to say, "In reality, there is no contradiction. Q.E.D."

My question is this, however: if you choose this point of view - and let me reiterate, I have absolutely no issue with you choosing that way - how can you involve yourself in a debate of this nature; specifically, one which is essentially and innately involved with analysis of an IU nature, and therefore one which presumes SoD?