Author Topic: Art Discussion  (Read 10512 times)

Offline shran

  • Veteran Member
  • Posts: 1,377
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2010, 07:24:37 AM »

I always try to keep the following rules in mind:
- Designs made for a certain fictional universe should comply with the aesthetic rules of that universe. A Trek ship doesn't work in the Star Wars universe, or vice versa.

I can live with most of these principles, but there are some things that bugged me regarding this one. I think you should take some leeway with these rules if the implementation of this rule would have negative consequences. One specific example from Star Trek has bugged me quite a bit: putting the bridge on top.

Years of tradition have made this a stock design element, but at the same time it has some rather glaring consequences. 1. The bridge will always be visible as a clear target. that makes that place exceptionally vulnerable as soon as the shields are down.
2. Being so visible, enemy ships will know what they need to hit, as the upper echelons of the command crew are most likely located there. bust the bridge, and that whole command top is gone.
3. If the ship is boarded, any boarding crew will know where to go: up.
4. Taking over the bridge by use of a breeching pod will be hideously easy.
5. Being on top of the ship means that there are next to no corridors or other facilities at the same level. You have to have a lift of some sorts to get to the rest of the ship. If those lifts are jammed or unavailable, that is somewhat bothersome.

I don't mind the rules Roddenberry set up for this, but it has some rather unfortunate implications which mean that several precautions need to be taken to prevent such situations while keeping the bridge on top. Such precautions can be left out or reduced significantly by putting the bridge elsewhere, thus freeing up resources to be put to use elsewhere in the ship.

Thus, should guidelines or rules regarding designs be left out if their implications are so severe that different solutions possibly contradicting said rule are a better idea?
A terrible enfant called Peter/
Once sprinkled his bed with a gheeter/
His father got whoost/
Took hold of a cnoost/
And gave him a pack on his meeter.

Offline Juvat

  • Prolific Member
  • Posts: 520
  • USAF Weapons Instructor
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2010, 11:36:44 AM »
I believe there are pros and cons to the placement of the bridge.  Generally speaking, though, the bridge wasn't directly exposed to the outer hull...at least until TNG era.  Prior designs mounted a large sensor suite to the top and bottom of the saucer thereby tucking the bridge lower into the hull.  While still close to the top, I believe this methodology would provide some coverage in the event of shield failure.  The modular design of bridges lends itself as a good reason for their location as well.  It's easier and more economical to swap out an entire module during refits than carry individual pieces from point A to point B throughout the ship.  I've also never seen a ship that didn't have backup access to lower decks.  There are always hatches w/ladders or stairways leading down from the bridge.

I realize you said there are precautions in place and I agree that it would be feasible to put the bridge deeper within the hull, but I think the pros and cons are about equal because of the precautions that have already been established.

As far as what Bernd was referring to, I took it as more along the lines of things such as technology levels and recognizability of ships/tech as belonging to a certain universe.  Do turbolasers work in Trek?  Does warp drive exist in Star Wars?  What about transporters?  Those things should be retained in their own specific universes.  Now, if you want to design a ship with a buried bridge go ahead.  There's nothing stating it wouldn't work in the Trek universe.
"In God We Trust"

Offline Data007

  • Eminent Member
  • Posts: 5,476
  • What? You don't have voices in your head?
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2010, 10:55:29 AM »
It's my feeling that your top two notes, Shran, as to the vulnerability of the bridge are very nearly moot points, at least in combat. Trek ships are rarely seen to last long in combat without shields, regardless of where the bridge might be. The exceptions being those ships that are stated to have some sort of supplementary protection aside from their shields, i.e. the Defiant and Sovereign. Your other points are valid, but it's my opinion that the gains from the bridge module mount are not entirely negated by the potential weaknesses.
"Titans are the God-Machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Imagine a city. Now imagine that city is angry at you, can walk, and has continent leveling weapons aimed at you. And is inhabited by more things that hate you. You have a rough idea of a Titan."

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably." Judge Aaron Satie

New Haven Chronicles

Offline shran

  • Veteran Member
  • Posts: 1,377
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2010, 01:12:46 PM »
In Federation ships where shield technology is common, it is indeed acceptable to place it on top due to little added protection. However, the Enterprise NX-01 had no shield technology, yet used the same placement without shielding. One well-placed shot could have hit the bridge hideously easy.
A terrible enfant called Peter/
Once sprinkled his bed with a gheeter/
His father got whoost/
Took hold of a cnoost/
And gave him a pack on his meeter.

Offline Data007

  • Eminent Member
  • Posts: 5,476
  • What? You don't have voices in your head?
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #29 on: October 20, 2010, 02:53:01 AM »
And it did. I don't remember the episode though.
"Titans are the God-Machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Imagine a city. Now imagine that city is angry at you, can walk, and has continent leveling weapons aimed at you. And is inhabited by more things that hate you. You have a rough idea of a Titan."

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably." Judge Aaron Satie

New Haven Chronicles

Offline shran

  • Veteran Member
  • Posts: 1,377
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #30 on: October 20, 2010, 10:48:24 AM »
If the bridge wasn't on top and exposed, that situation could be averted, or would at least be postponed significantly, thus a non-exposed bridge would be very sensible. there may be situations where shields are useless, in which situation you still have a command center with next to zero protection. One of such instances would be the Mutara Nebula. One shot and the entire TOS cast would have been vaporized.
A terrible enfant called Peter/
Once sprinkled his bed with a gheeter/
His father got whoost/
Took hold of a cnoost/
And gave him a pack on his meeter.

Offline Data007

  • Eminent Member
  • Posts: 5,476
  • What? You don't have voices in your head?
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #31 on: October 20, 2010, 12:32:04 PM »
It's my opinion, though, that such situations are few and far enough between as to not justify the loss of the top mounted bridge versatility. No matter where your bridge is, without shields in any sort of standup fight, your ship is basically a set of choice targets. Want to win quick? Aim for the nacelles or warp core, both far more volatile and destructive targets than eliminating the top command. Because ships do have measures in place for the loss of the bridge, but not so many for total vaporization.
"Titans are the God-Machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Imagine a city. Now imagine that city is angry at you, can walk, and has continent leveling weapons aimed at you. And is inhabited by more things that hate you. You have a rough idea of a Titan."

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably." Judge Aaron Satie

New Haven Chronicles

Offline Jimi James

  • So Say We All
  • Administrator
  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 9,321
  • Abandon Ship
    • View Profile
    • The New Haven Chronicles
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2010, 01:22:34 PM »
A good compromise would be something like the Defiant, where the bridge is submerged within a larger deck.  You could even go so far as to place some sort of armored sensor suite over the bridge with a layer of armor between the top of the bridge and the sensor suite and include it all in deck one.  So technically, the bridge is still on top of the saucer, but it's no longer exposed to the elements of space travel.

Personally, I really think it depends upon the situation (or the given universe) where in you must decide how far to push the established rules in face of what might actually exist in terms of realism.  Additionally, in a science fiction world like Trek, realism can almost always be diverted in favor of some new tech.  The ability of the audience to suspend their disbelief is also a factor that must be considered when trying to decide how much you can get away with and how far you can take things before it simply becomes ridiculous.
https://www.patreon.com/JonMichaelMay
Help me make art, by joining me on Patreon. Various subscriptions tiers are in place, allowing you to support my addictive art habit for as little as $1 a month.

Offline Data007

  • Eminent Member
  • Posts: 5,476
  • What? You don't have voices in your head?
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #33 on: October 20, 2010, 02:25:55 PM »
I cited the Defiant earlier as to how one could compromise without going all Covenant in design style. (For those of you who haven't read all the books, the Covenant do put their bridges dead centre in the ship)
"Titans are the God-Machines of the Adeptus Mechanicus. Imagine a city. Now imagine that city is angry at you, can walk, and has continent leveling weapons aimed at you. And is inhabited by more things that hate you. You have a rough idea of a Titan."

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied chains us all irrevocably." Judge Aaron Satie

New Haven Chronicles

Offline Bernd

  • Administrator
  • Distinguished Member
  • Posts: 7,865
  • Lord of the Bored
    • View Profile
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #34 on: October 20, 2010, 04:49:03 PM »
I too thought of designs with partially or entirely buried bridges, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Perhaps the recognizability would suffer a little bit, but some variation needs to be allowed.

Juvat expressed better what I meant with the rule not to mix up the designs of different sci-fi universes.

Offline 3DAlvin

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
  • Work Hard, Play Harder
    • View Profile
    • alvin camidge page
Re: Art Discussion
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2016, 11:30:45 PM »
Let's just start by saying, Hello all
I'm a new user to this site and very excited to be a part of it. Please look at my profile to get to know me better.
I was looking at the discussion about the program "Inkscape". You should reevaluate your thoughts on this program. Back when some of these posts were written was in 2010 I suspect that "Inkscape" was a handful to use. Things are probably very different now. Back in 2002 I was first taught to use Adobe Illustrator "my very first program even before Word or Internet explorer". As time progressed and I finally graduated college with a BA in Art/Cinema Animation and found out that with the then new "Adobe CC" that I didn't really have control over things I had payed money for. Goodbye Adobe and other programs. Back to topic of "Inkscape" I love it, It just takes time to learn "like anything else". I'll end for now with there are plenty of tutorials and help info on line.
Warp 9 Engage, Make it so !