What can beat the Andromeda Ascendant?

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

For fun and reference, here's a compilation of SG battle scenes, and one of ST battles. Notice in the SG compilation the speed of all of the gouald, tauri, and ori weapons. Even the daedelus/odyssey beam moves noticeably slow... in fact, that's something that looks like you could dodge. Then take a look at ST. Anyone that can call phasers "slow moving glowing balls" is deluding themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAOWp3RAurk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YY_69oCDPYo

The main thing I noticed was a lot more maneuvering in ST, and that Cardassian and Borg PHASERs are apparently much faster than everyone else's. I saw leading edges on everyone's but theirs in one shot or another. And let me just say that Klingon and the Defiant's weapons are indeed slow-moving blobs...which happen to be called PHASERs in the Defiant's case.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but the main difference is that you take a literal interpretation of CGI as a piece of evidence to be weighed against the rest, whereas I take an artistic interpretation of CGI as a piece of evidence. I'm happy to allow the on-screen dialog to guide me in how to interpret that artistic representation. Although there's some inconsistencies (as always in ST land), the on-screen dialog does clearly state occasionally that the beam coming out is EM of one type or another, which clearly establishes to me that it's a light speed weapon. Where script refers to the beam as consisting of nadion particles, it seems quite reasonable to assume that nadions, like photons, move at c (whatever the hell a nadion might be).

So I don't see a conflict between CGI and script. You do, and conclude that the massive amount of CGI footage outweighs anyone in uniform actually explaining how a phaser works. I don't, and conclude that if they explain it to be light speed, then the CGI is giving me an artistic representation of that. And judged against obviously slower moving pulse and beam weapons, I don't see any reason not to accept the bulk of CGI as perfectly supporting this viewpoint. It's consistent and logical, and fits with both CGI and script, which to me means that the bulk of evidence certainly does support this interpretation. And if you go googling around the web, you'll find that this is a nearly unanimous interpretation. You can't find any fan site, wikipedia, tech manual, or discussion forum where people are seriously arguing that phasers move slow. Except here, perhaps.

I think you summed things up fairly well here. I'm not inclined to start from the position of "the visuals are just an artistic representation" as you say you are though. I personally think that undercuts their value a little too much for my comfort. I do tend to favor the dialog as well myself but it depends on the circumstance and whether or not it's possible to think ones way around what might initially look like a contradiction. For example take the EM emitter quotes you talked about as something someone might have said at some point.

Now if we accept that piece of information it does in fact create a contradiction not only with the visuals but to a lesser extent with other instances where characters have spoken on screen about needing to "close to weapons range" against fairly nearby targets or counted off what seemed like shorter ranges than a real EM beam weapon should logically have. One way you could potentially approach that would be to say that some component of the beam was emitted at lightspeed but not necessarily the entire beam/dangerous part which explains slow observed speeds of the visible part and the shorter battle ranges. That would let you resolve the conflict without throwing any of the evidence out wholesale which is always preferable.

Actually, there's quite a bit more variation in CGI than you are giving them credit for. There are plenty of clips where it is nearly impossible to tell if you can actually see the beam front moving... it looks like the beam appears and dissapears.

I know what you're talking about here to.

Edit: The backs of the beams are also telling. If you watch the backs you can also see them zoom away into the distance. Not in all cases though. Some of the ones in those videos you'd probably need to frame by frame to see the propagation and even then you might not catch it over such short distances. This does prove they're fast but fast and C aren't the same thing. There's just as many examples in the vids of beams where you can clearly see the propagation on either the leading or trailing edge.

I agree about the general inconsistency though, the video you posted shows that much quite well. I never really wanted to imply that the CGI is perfect, only that it can't simply be discarded wholesale from the start. One needs to give it proper credit and weigh it just like one would anything else and then decide in the case of unresolvable conflicts if it should be discarded or if other evidence should be on a case by case basis. Sometimes the visuals will be more wrong than the dialog but the reverse is also equally possible when compared to the greater context. There's an episode for example that includes dialog of the Enterprise loosing significant amounts of shield strength from a megawatt range attack, or the various horrifyingly wrong bits of science in voyager about cracks in event horizons or people "evolving" into lizards etc. Script writers can be just as ignorant as CGI people.

My point is that no single source can be taken as infallible and placed in a position to universally trump others in all cases. They all need to be looked at together in context of the story and previous examples. Then you can see which one most of the other information seems to agree with.

And on-screen dialog, though the script isn't easily findable so far as I can tell. And not one tech manual - all of them. And why the reference to the 90's? A weird jab, considering that's when the show was airing.

The remark about the 90s was just because that quote came out of the TNG tech manual and there's been plenty of Trek that happened after that, likewise with the same sub light weapon visuals. I've also heard in the past that the tech manuals in general hold a dubious canon status, especially when used to potentially contradict material from the actual series, visual, dialog or otherwise.

Interestingly, the best figures I can find on phaser and torpedo range put the phaser at about one light-second, and photon torpedoes at around half a light minute. Seems silly that ships are always within a few hundred yards, when the claim is that the phasers are effective over hundreds of thousands of miles. Now here's where I can't think of a single example of CGI showing any evidence of such an extended range, though it makes sense logically. And as for torpedo speed, I really don't know if there is script on screen or not but the "tech manuals" that you despise just state "high sublight" which seems to be similar to the Andromeda's do. We've seen guided torpedoes on screen before, when it serves the plot, so it seems like at least occasionally they can be guided. But they usually go perfectly straight... go figure. Highest yield from on-screen numbers for some of the more "special" varieties works out to around 15,000,000 gigatons... not something I'd want to be near. And the warp capability is explained as somehow being able to sustain a warp field, but not create one from scratch. A contrived explanation, but one that seems mostly consistent with the CGI, at least, except for the handful of examples of a torpedo or probe being fired at what looks to be warp speeds from a stationary platform (I think DS9 made that mistake, not the others).

I assume those range figures come from another tech manual because I think we can agree that combat in the series does not take place at light second ranges.

The yield is also very questionable to me. Where does the idea of 15 million gigaton photon torpedos come from because I can guarantee you that's been contradicted.

For fun and reference, here's a compilation of SG battle scenes, and one of ST battles. Notice in the SG compilation the speed of all of the gouald, tauri, and ori weapons. Even the daedelus/odyssey beam moves noticeably slow... in fact, that's something that looks like you could dodge. Then take a look at ST. Anyone that can call phasers "slow moving glowing balls" is deluding themselves.

Oh no doubt the blobs in stargate are much slower for sure. Stargate's blobs are ridiculously slow. Hell the whose series depiction of space battles has been infested with everything from scaling to believability errors more or less since they started trying to do it.

One thing you could always say for trek is the CGI for the battles in shows like DS9 was really top notch. It's even still better than most of what's out there now.

[Orii]

I assume those range figures come from another tech manual because I think we can agree that combat in the series does not take place at light second ranges.

Yes... I can't find any instance where a range is mentioned on screen. It seems like the general status of the tech manuals (and there's one for every show, and they mostly agree) is that they are "near canon" and accepted as such except for where they explicitly contradict what has been or might later be said or shown on screen. Some information from the manuals has been incorporated by Paramount into later shows, so they have some weight. But then some things they say contradicts things said on screen thirty years ago, which is just stupid.

The yield is also very questionable to me. Where does the idea of 15 million gigaton photon torpedos come from because I can guarantee you that's been contradicted.

It comes from one of Voyager's weapons on a particular episode, quoted on screen as "5 million isotons" of yield. Some yahoo came up with his own conversion to TNT, but the most reasonable thing I can find is to just use the weight of matter and antimatter said to be in a standard photon torpedo (1.5kg of each, stated numerous times as far as I can tell) that has a standard yield of 25 isotons (also said on screen many times). You can do the calculation yourself. To be honest though, when yields get that high I don't know how to measure their destructiveness. On Earth, it would be a catastrophe, but in space the effective range might not really be that far? Pretty damaging to a ship though, I'd think.

[Orii]

The main thing I noticed was a lot more maneuvering in ST, and that Cardassian and Borg PHASERs are apparently much faster than everyone else's. I saw leading edges on everyone's but theirs in one shot or another. And let me just say that Klingon and the Defiant's weapons are indeed slow-moving blobs...which happen to be called PHASERs in the Defiant's case.

Well, the Defiant's are "phase cannons" so maybe that's different. The tech manuals go really screwy when trying to make sense of that. Here's a great case where the CGI guys just screwed the pooch for everyone.

[aAnubiSs]

Seeing that Ouroboros seems to be the only one aware of the rules regarding technical discussion I see no point in even entering this discussion. Granted he seems to be the only one with some common sense too. Guess you have to be an original member for that to happen.

Visual trumphs dialog unless stated by TPTB OR against massive evidence to the contrary.

If you want to learn how to participate in technical debates I suggest you check out spacebattles Tech discussion sub-forum.

This is Your God, Nuby.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

? Ouroboros isn't the only one with common sense. Even his opponents have good arguments. Most of the bad ones have left.

[morrismike]

I don't want to rain on anyones parade here, but..... The reason the andromena battles were such long range was so they could shoot the battle from inside the bridge (cheaper than having virtual dogfights like sg1 and everyone else). The reason everyone elses battles are so close is so people with 21" tvs can see the whole fight.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Um...and realism means nothing I guess?

[morrismike]

You're reading things into what you're seeing on the screen.

[thekillman]

if visuals were the main proof, how do you explain hives stated as 11km, while visuals actually say its 5km. how do you explain the shrinking and growing of ships. how do you explain a nuke to be devastating one moment and useless on the other moment?
CGI is inconsistent. its there for effects. not to be perfectly accurate and a reliable source of info. unless you take CGI of every episode, and take the episodes with consitency and accuracy as your base.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

You're reading things into what you're seeing on the screen.

Andromeda was created by people who actually could design warships; not FX people. Her fighting style is a natural evolution of modern tactics. Even if they would have degraded her had they had more money, it's a darn good thing the didn't. Because realism is more important to me than big booms. I believe Colonel Mitchell would agree. ("200")

[morrismike]

We get it, you're an andromenda fan first, SG fan second and it clouds your judgement.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Actually...no.

[Kebab Gud]

Q: What can beat the Andromeda Ascendant?

A: Ratings..

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

That's actually funny.