Sleek = Advanced?!

[PG15]

I've seen this on this forum many-a-time, and I don't get it.

So some ship is all sleek and "pretty", how does that, in anyway, make it more advanced than something that's blocky and/or "ugly"? Yes, I'm talking about the Orion and, say, the O'Neil; now, just because they look different and one is said to be better looking, how does that automatically mean that the O'Neil is more advanced than the Orion?

Is it just human bias, or am I missing something?

[Hooperman1990]

Well stuff like the daedelus and the orion (and ESPECIALLY the prometheus) had sticky out bits because the technology wasnt advanced enough to fit snugly (if we assume that technology gets smaller as it gets more advanced). Also, the oneill was nice and shiny and the orion was a bit dull coloured cos the oneill had a fancy looking new alloy that was tougher. Although i suppose it doesnt have to be, after all, a city ship really isnt sleek but would eat several oneills without a flicker!

[WTFOwned]

I say that just because it looks better, does not mean it is better.

Looks don't matter - especially for interstellar warships.
If it looks like crap and your enemy thinks it must suck because of it and therefore they use less force, all the better for you!

Just because it looks ugly, does not mean it can't kick your ass.

[Wraith_Hunter]

Because something looks pretty it doesn't necessarily make it so.

There is another thread here, where someone says Asgard are just as advanced as the Lanteans because they have a nice looking city etc.

Remember appearences can be deceiving. Sure Aurora class ships look like crap, but you have to make allowances for the way they were rushed into service. It was done during a time of war, which if they lost would have cost them the entire galaxy & the Lantean race. So looks I doubt were the last thing on their minds.

If they had time, then I'm sure they could have prettied it up a lot more. However you have to consider, would it really matter how visually appealing your ship is given it's nature. While flying it, your inside. Therefore can't look at it & admire how beautiful it is. The only ones who will be getting a look at it will be your enemies. Of which they will be trying to blast the crap out of it. So the uglier the ship, the more menacing it'll look to them.

Take a look at Mike Tyson, he'd scare the crap out of almost anyone in a dark alley. However, one of the pretty boy wrestlers or ufc fighters could probably hand him a new one with fairly little trouble. Yet, they wouldn't instill that fear factor into you at first. Therefore in times of conflict you want a mean looking machine. Which I think that the Aurora class serves that purpose fairly well myself.

Ultimately it comes down to purpose, warships should look ugly. When you land in orbit of an enemy planet you want to scare the crap out of them, not have them looking on & commenting how stunning your ship looks.

I'm sure every race has their own people who want to make things look good. That's why Asuras, Atlantis look visually stunning. However they were built when there was time to plan & contruct every detail. 'Aurora' class ships were built rapidly during a time of great conflict.

So no, it doesn't matter how great something looks, that serves no indication as to how advanced something is. For instance, take a look at Dyson hoovers, some are really nice looking. Yet they continually get rated low for being the most likely to break down & all that. Yet Orek (or soemthing like that) look 50 years out of date, but scores very well for functionality.

Looks can be deceiving!

[ACharmedAsgard]

Looks in no way makes something more advanced.

However some races may make their ships look good as a symbol of their advancement and is why, although looks aren't what makes a people or ship, when we know someone is advanced we expect their ships to look good.

It's a human thing.

There's one thing though, the Ori and Ancients are basically the same race just split into two parts and they are both about as advanced as each other. why then does the Ancient ship look like crap, and the Ori ships look quite nice? probably because of what I said earlier maybe?

[PG15]

Pretty much.

Going back to the buildings analogy I had in another thread, it's the same reason why Chinese Pagotas look different from Egyptian pyramids.

[SaberBlade]

I think the general idea is that the better it looks, the more advanced it is.

It as if the more powerful it is, or the better it is, the better you want it to look.

We could use Ancients and Orii as an example, but you need to remember that the Ancients we've gotten looked like pieces of crap after being through hell. Yet, the Asgard ships just look better and better based on how advanced they are. So perhaps the Asgard are more like us than say the Ancients or the Orii. If we used Ancient tech alone to build a ship, I could see something really cool being designed.

Just look at Atlantis. The most advanced tech and it look great, their ships however could be better. then you've got things like their weather time loop machine but then you've got the Time Jumper which looks so much better.

[Star Fox]

The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

[jds1982]

The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

More likely just newer.

[PSp2gamer]

The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

So we are more advanced then the Ancients because we are 10,000 years newer?

[PG15]

But that's problem, isn't it? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's shinier to somebody doesn't mean it's more advanced.

[ACharmedAsgard]

So we are more advanced then the Ancients because we are 10,000 years newer?

No, if you remember the Asgard civilisation is far more then 10,000 years old. The Ancients regognised the Asgard as an advanced race during the time of the treaty of the 4 races which means that the Asgard have been advanced way longer then 10,000 years and far longer then we have been around. Evidence for this, is that 10,000 years ago they were able to travel from their home galaxy to ours in order to meet with the Ancients, Nox and Furlings and so were quite advanced.

There maybe a possiblity that the Asgard have become more advanced then the Ancients in some areas of technology over the passed 10,000 years seen as though they can travel from one galaxy to the other in minutes (as mentioned in the gateworld Omnipedia and some episodes) whilst it took the Ancient ships stubstantially longer. Another example is the Asgard's beaming technology which seems to be more versitile then the Ancient ring technology.

[jds1982]

Yeah it took the Ancients a long time to get here from their home galaxy, it's really really far away. Plus they were probably indecisive about where to settle, so that would have made the journey longer.

[PSp2gamer]

Yeah it took the Ancients a long time to get here from their home galaxy, it's really really far away. Plus they were probably indecisive about where to settle, so that would have made the journey longer.

Im sure there Hyperdives have improved since they came from there Home Galaxy to the MW too.

[2ndgenerationalteran]

The Oneill Also happens to be 10,000 Years newer, id think a tad more advanced

what do you mean 10,000 years newer so its more advanced? Its newer made by a race thats probably been around for about 30,000 years, compared to the ancients millions of years. If you ask me the Orion is way more advanced than the Oneill.

We probably tend to notice the sleek ships as aerodynamic and extremely streemlined so it can fly through the air without much resistance, opposed to the blocky ships with things protruding out from it that would cause resistance slowing down the ship or tear it appart. Of course this isnt much of a matter in space as much as it is in an atmosphere.