Praeothmin wrote: Those were the examples I could quickly find in writing, but there are many, many more examples of radiation impeding sensors and Tricorders during the shows...
Your only example is unquantifiable in it's own setting, and would at worst mean that a Star Wars ship pointing it's ion engines at a UFP ship, or turning on it's shields might make scanning something difficult.
Praeothmin wrote: And while sensors in ST are much better than in SW, they aren't perfect either.
That's like comparing WW-II sensor tech to modern stuff.
Praeothmin wrote:How many times did we see Starfleet personnel walk down a corridor, Tricorder in hand, using it to find an intruder, or their quarry, only to still be surprised by said intruder when they got close?
All the times that come to mind involve unquantifiable things like the guy being made untraceable with standard sensors..
Praeothmin wrote: How many times did we see misses in battle, at spitball range, against opposing vessels?
And
R2-D2 was at Vulcan
Phasers can be fired out torpedo tubes
Micro meteoroids are the size of baseballs and larger
Yes the visuals in Star Trek are oh so trust worthy. We must trust them above all else^_^
Praeothmin wrote: ST: Gen gives us the BoP missing the E-D, barely a few km in front of her, and only performing a slight turning maneuver, and still the BoP missed...
Are you the ships just aren't that large that they looked close? Star Trek Ships change size for no reason after all. Visuals are never wrong for any reason.^_^
Cool the UFP uses ECM.^_^
Seriously the misses we see the ships with weapons like the Klingons tend to use seems to be a form of aiming used in the real world when using machine guns.
Praeothmin wrote: DS9 has us witness the station missing non-maneuvering Klingon vessels, again at most a few km from the station, with a Hit-miss ratio close to 60% (the episode when the Klingons attack the station)...
Are the misses? How do you know the target just wasn't off screen, or the shot did exactly what it was suppose to?
Praeothmin wrote: "Sacrifice or Angels" and the Chin'toka battles also give us misses not too far away...
I seem to recall screwed VFXs in those battles. Perhaps a clip and time stamp to make sure I'm looking at what you mean?
Praeothmin wrote: Trek sensors are better then SW sensors, to be sure, but they are not, nor have they ever been, perfect, and can be fooled by many means, like using the Lagrange point of a planet to escape notice, and many others...
Yes ECM is a wonderful thing, but it's to bad Star Wars has nothing like Star Trek sensors systems. Heck it seems like Star Wars is stuck at WW-II ranges and sensor tech...
Praeothmin wrote: Where do you get that impression from?
They didn't seem to work that well to me in ANH, nor in RotJ...
They never had trouble hitting their targets in ROTJ. The only thing they couldn't see was if the shield was up or not, and after the trap was sprung we see no sign of problems with sensors.
In ANH the misses seemed to be human error to me.
Given the general shown performance of the tech ANH and ROTJ don't really stand out as poor showings.
Praeothmin wrote: Unless they are special flares designed to fool SW sensors, which they probably are...
That burn? Sounds like thermite to me.
Praeothmin wrote: Let's try this differently:
If I said ST targetting sensors are crap because ST doesn't use jamming and they still miss at spitball range, what would you say to explain this?
Sounds like stupidly good ECM to point where even visual sensors can't be trusted, or VFX screw ups.
Since Star Wars targeting sensors tend to be the Mark one eye ball what's your point?
Praeothmin wrote: But he didn't display that kind of power.
We don't know what mister oily blob could do. It seems like it had little problems blocking transporters, and warping space and time like when it took Riker inside it's self. It certain was not made out of mundane matter. It was as I recall describes as a psychic or spiritual being made of "evil", it would be right at home as a Sailor Moon big bad.
The only thing we know it could not do was leave the planet under it own power, and we don't know why.
Praeothmin wrote: As for the shuttle, it had Warp Nacelles, thus had a Warp Core, and thus needed M/AM as fuel...
What model of shuttle does not have Nacelles?
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Category:F ... le_classes
Maybe I'm forgetting something, but why does the shuttle need anything more then impulse?
Since when is anti-matter needed to use a warp drive?
Praeothmin wrote: I have, since many of the scaling's I've seen were based off of the Torpedo's glow, and on whether or not it had grown once fired or not...
That's what always happens when torpedos are fired in Star Trek. The glow always grows. You can tell the glow grows after firing with the naked eye.
How much the glow grows seems different every time, but the glow is always bigger then the torpedo.
I'd compare the results of the Rise scalings to Apocalypse Rising:
http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... hilit=Mith
The torpedo in Rise seemed to be set to explode on contact going by the visuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH08YtGUw4U
Praeothmin wrote: The "It wasn't vaporized", I don't mind as much, because it was the expected result, as clearly stated in dialogue...
Well the "it wasn't vaporized" is the only complaint I ever heard.
Praeothmin wrote: Nowhere, not by you or me, but Masks is still often used as a high showing for firepower in ST.
What are the ones you use?
I prefer the tunneling about 3000 kilometer in 19 seconds.
The problem is that Star Trek energy weapons all seem to work through exotic means, and that means you can only get an effective yield. That is why people try to figure out the yields of more DET weapons like photon torpedos.
Praeothmin wrote: Rise is in dispute since scaling is uncertain, the Tech manual isn't canon and has many incidents disputing it, and Obsession has ST's Über AM used in an explosive of some kind, and is truly an outlier since the explosion was incredible...
But obsession is easily quantified, and everything did exactly what was expected. It certainly speaks highly of the power generation capabilities of Warp cores.
Praeothmin wrote: Not the explosion itself, but the effects it had on the asteroids.
Depending on the size of the asteroid, it may have been in the high KT, and perhaps even in the low MT, which fits with "Pegasus", but is not "Rise" or "Skin Of Evil" material...
Pegasus demands that there be nothing recognizable as a ship left, and they had no idea where in the exotic asteroid the ship was.
Wasn't the Pegasus asteroid reused in the Voyager episode "Phage"? They at least look similar.
Praeothmin wrote: As for SW, we know from TESB's AT-AT firing on the shield generators that Blaster Cannons, and most likely TLs since they are pretty much the same type of weapons, have adjustable power settings, just like ST, so while TESB does give us mid KT to low MT depending on scaling, this isn't a high-end showing, as the power could have been at 10% of full power for all we know...
The At-At's gun set off a chain reaction in TESB.
Praeothmin wrote: And in RotS, and TCW, we have very high ROF for SW ships, which may come at the expense of Firepower...
If yours shots have less time to charge for you to shoot them more often, it is only logical that they cannot then have enough time to charge to full power.
This can be logically concluded in that in the OT, the ROF was much lower, and shots seemed a bit more powerful...
Well since you bring up SW:TCW, in the Destroy the Malevolence arc Obi-Won orders full power to the heavy guns, something like two thirds of the guns stop shooting, and the rate of fire isn't really changed.
I wonder what kind of a yield we could get off the Malevolence if we assume armor similar the armor on the Invisible Hand? We know the upper limits for the armor on the Invisible Hand since it kind of burnt up on reentry in Ep.III.
Praeothmin wrote: That is what I try to do, and that is what I felt (perhaps wrongly) that you weren't doing...
Different canon policies dictate how you analyze a series, and that can leave you with having almost only the visuals to go by. The truth is I don't like like using just visuals to quantify what a group in a series is capable of since I really don't trust visual effect to be correct 100% of the time.
Praeothmin wrote: Just as I don't by the "They were dialed down because the Jedi were close by" excuse for the poor AotC showings, I don't buy this for the FC showing.
The Borg clearly wanted to destroy the Phoenix and all the humans involved in order to stop Earth from ever becoming a space-faring behemoth, and yet their shots were pitiful, to say the least.
While I do see this instance as an outlier because of higher showings, this does show us far less powerful weapons than those high MTs and low GTs some people argue for ST...
Given the E-E was badly damaged after going back in time the same way the sphere did, and the Borg time ship had barely escaped an exploding cube being damaged to some degree is likely. The Borg had also not planed on the E-E chasing it.
It may well have been a case of the Borg only using just enough boom to get the job done since the plan worked until the E-E followed the sphere.
I'd just say there are to many unknowns to properly quantify the event.
Praeothmin wrote: While similar, the GO24 isn't exactly a BDZ...
This is what Scotty says, in "A Taste of Armageddon":
[quote=" "A Taste of Armageddon""] This is the commander of the U.S.S. Enterprise. All cities and installations on Eminiar 7 have been located, identified,
and fed into our fire control system. In 1 hour and 45 minutes,
the entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed. You have that long to surrender your hostages
So the most populated centers of tha planet are to be destroyed, which in turn would be catastrophic for any planet.
Imagine 250 Torpedoes, even at 1-2 MT each, fired at the 250 most populous areas on Earth, plus one Phaser shot per Torpedo burst...
The ravages would be terrible, and while human life would not cease, it would have been dealt one hell of a blow, and I am pretty sure almost half would perish...
Civilization as we know it would be devastated, World economy destroyed, firestorms would be ravaging the ecosystems...
BDZ, if I remember correctly, also add "all fisheries, animal and plant life"...
So while it takes more than 1 ship to perform, their objective is much "grander", in a way...
[/quote]
"The entire inhabited surface of your planet will be destroyed"
That sounds like some of the more extreme interpretations of a Base Delta Zero, and while ignoring fisheries it would include all land based plant and animal life.
One can't forget what happened to the planet iOrelious IX, Iota Geminorum IV , or what was attempted in The Die Is Cast. When a Trek power says destroy they can mean what happened to Alderaan.
They could have very well meant there would be nothing above water after the Enterprise was done with the planet. It only took about 19 seconds for the E-D to drill through about 3000 kilometers of planet remember.^_^
I find it utterly hilarious how over the top silly Star Trek can be at times.
Praeothmin wrote: This actually made me think:
There's no way you can refute the existence of anti-grav in SW without first explaining how gravity works?
We think in ST it has to do with particles called "gravitons", but how do they work?
And by that, I am not talking about it's effects (bodies being attracted to one another), but how do they achieve the effects we see in both universes?
Without that explanation, you have no basis for saying "the speeder falls, so it's not anti-gravity"...
There are a lot of unknowns.
Well we have real world models that actual fit well with at least some of what we see in Star Wars that involves things like ioncraft, and some of the description of Star Wars anti-gravity sounds like maglev tech taken to the extreme.
Star Trek's anti-gravity tech is at least partly related to the warp drive which works by warping space/time with gravity.
Praeothmin wrote: Calling someone a Trekkie isn't an insult.
I didn't call you an idiot, an imbecile, or anything like that.
I don't think you are.
I called you a Trekkie for the reasons I gave in my previous posts: I feel you wank ST to much and weaken SW more than you should...
I probably should have said that I "perceived this to be the case", because it comes from my perceptions of your way of debating, but it never was meant as an insult...
I consider calling someone a trekkie or a warsie to be an insult. They aren't something I would call someone I am referring to in a respectful manner as they have to me connotations of irrational behavior/poor mental health, and as I have stated neither Star Wars nor Star Trek make it on my list my favorite series.