I mean, just on Halo alone...dude, the frigates are still fucking huge, relative to a human being. All the Halo ships are, they're built in space, and not subject to the concerns of a planetside launch. Even more, the ships are designed as such to minimize surface area. They're warships, the smaller a sensor signature you display and the smaller a target you are, the harder it is to get blown up. Very rarely do they ever even land or operate in atmosphere. We see that happen in the games for the sake of exposition and fun. Stargate, if anything, tends to be more realistic because it's based on several degrees of hard science. Stretched to the limit, but it's a start. Halo is to the rest of these series as Star Wars was to Star Trek. Not as grounded in reality, lacking several explanations behind the tech, and most of the main canon (in this case, the games) ignores the tech of the series for the sake of drama. The expanded universe touches on it, but we're still well into the realm of science fiction.
No modern sci-fi really comes close to reality. We haven't had a hard sci-fi series (as far as I know) that really, truly approaches strong factual integrity for years. Mass Effect is the only one I can think of, and even then, Mass Effect Fields. Enough said.
is this a version of badage boys?
Halo's ships suck in science content compared to Mass Effect's - it's one of the few sci-fis I've seen address problems like charge or heat buildup and the fact that there's a NEED to dissipate such things before they reach dangerous levels.
Who gives a shit. It's science [B]FICTION[/B].
Do you not understand space or gravity? You keep saying how protrusions will be ripped off when referring to ships that will never enter a planet's atmosphere.
Half your points are just plain wrong and the other issues you talk about are obviously for badass effect.
Also how you can think the pelican is realistic is beyond me. It's so damn big and bulky with a tiny cargo hold while constantly flying like a VTOL which is probably the most inefficient way possible.
hahahahahahahaha
Of all the things to moan about, why didn't you bring up the fact that most aliens look like humans with slightly altered features? Startrek is very guilty of this. So is Stargate but at least they give a reason.
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Also
SCIENCE
[B]FICTION [/B]
[QUOTE=krail9;34440476]Also how you can think the pelican is realistic is beyond me. It's so damn big and bulky with a tiny cargo hold while constantly flying like a VTOL which is probably the most inefficient way possible.[/QUOTE]
its p clearly a thing for dropping equipment behind enemy lines and the entire thing is made entirely of engines so i dont see a problem??
post in quality thread ! :-)
dont kno why these other losers r saying its bad xD
[quote]This ship fails so hard it deserves its own spot in the list. Sure, I think it is one of the coolest looking ships ever imagined, but it is so frackin impractical I could frackin frack it for all frackin day. The reason it fails: it can not stand still, not even in space. What the frack. I mean really? just take a look at it landing and taking off. Why does it need to be shot out of a tube? It has and engine and the ship has two pointless runways for frack sake. And who was the genius that put metal skid instead of wheels for landing? Why does it even have to land like that? Why can't it just come to a stop and hover down like all the other ships?[/quote]
Accelerates out of a tube because it gets going faster and cheaper (propelled by magnets down the tube).
Also have fun "stopping" in space where there's no friction
lol halo
[QUOTE=Wootman;34440398]Who cares it's fiction it's not supposed to be realistic.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/12/11474/Torlan3.JPG[/IMG]
More games need to take Unreal's approach, and always give vehicles the most ridiculous weapons possible.
Vipers are the stupidest thing in Battlestar Galactica.
Well, apart from the whole faster than light thing.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;34440538]its p clearly a thing for dropping equipment behind enemy lines and the entire thing is made entirely of engines so i dont see a problem??[/QUOTE]
but if you need so much engine and shit just for such a small cargo hold why bother? we have helicopters now that are more efficient than that
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;34440591]Vipers are the stupidest thing in Battlestar Galactica.
Well, apart from the whole faster than light thing.[/QUOTE]
Well at least BSG got the fucking physics of space combat right where every other sci fi thing seems to think space has an atmosphere
[QUOTE=Mxpklx;34439980]
[img]http://halo.bungie.org/misc/sloftus_poa/images/pillar_of_autumn.jpg[/img] [img]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l148/megatron6543/8511127-Full.jpg[/img]
That is the UNSC Halcyon class cruiser and Frigate. These are just a few examples of the most realistic ships I could see in the future. The Halcyon Class Cruiser does not have parts just sticking out of the side that gravity could tare off. The Frigate is small, and the engines would not be affected by gravity. The reason they are sticking out is for more maneuverability. And the video below is just an example of a realistic ship take off that I would expect from any ship that size, unlike when the daedalus was hijacked and just lifted up out of the ground...
And lets not forget the regular vehicles. The UNSC Warthog, Mongoose, pelican, bumblebee, Falcon, longsword, shortsword, etc...
They are the most possible in my opinion.
[img]http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/0/07/H3_-_D77H-TCI.png[/img]
[/QUOTE]
Fuck your little 'realistic' ships
[img]http://images.wikia.com/warhammer40k/images/6/67/Img002.jpg[/img]
Emperor-class, bitches.
Speaking of Halo, does anybody have still have that long, and I mean [I]really[/I] long, rant about all the problems in Halo: Reach? Things like tactics, technology, etc.
Pretty sure it was at some other forum, just can't remember which.
Seems like it could be fitting in this thread.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9su3R9mOiTY/TtqaLTwn_0I/AAAAAAAADMc/2fDu5WR9btE/s1600/z_graves_01.jpg[/img]
Who cares about realism when you can have 8 mile long space cathedrals that take a short cut through demonic realms to travel around the galaxy.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;34440569]Accelerates out of a tube because it gets going faster and cheaper (propelled by magnets down the tube).
Also have fun "stopping" in space where there's no friction
lol halo[/QUOTE]
You don't need friction to stop. You just need an opposing force, in the same way that friction is an example of an opposing force.
OP
have you ever considered that people are using universal translators
for the sake of the watcher
Uuuuh.
You are kinda contradicting yourself here.
You say this is a fail:
[t]http://www.shaviva.com/photos/Stargate-Atlantis/Daedalus_in_orbit.jpg[/t]
But you say this is a win:
[t]http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l148/megatron6543/8511127-Full.jpg[/t]
The designs are very similar IMO.
And theres a reason its called science [B]fiction[/B].
ahahahaha
this is the best thread ever
God the use of "fail" as a noun makes we want to rip out peoples' brain stems with my teeth.
[QUOTE=legolover122;34440740]And theres a reason its called science [B]fiction[/B].[/QUOTE]
This basically sums up my opinion.
I say that sci-fic is more of getting the viewer/reader to think about things then to think about. NOT: "Oh this is the most probable thing to happen" or "UNREALISTIC".
Its entertainment. If it was completely like your way then it wouldn't be very entertaining.
Plus the halo thing is a bit... hypocritical.
[IMG]http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/7/78/Borg_cube_CGI_second_variant.jpg[/IMG]
Why do ships have to be logical? Heck the Borg Cube was just a cube, but it was still one of the most deadly things in Star Trek. If it works, it doesn't have to be pretty.
You didn't mention Star Trek ship designs. The shape is "warp dynamic", meaning the shape of the saucer and engineering hull [that's the tube with the satellite dish on it] are meant to flow with the lines of a warp field created by the nacelles.
[IMG]http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/2782/warpfield.gif[/IMG]
(as you can see they flow out like magnetic fields.)
There's air in space?
obviously mass effect is the most realistic, not halo you dumb idiot moron
lol what a fail, u fail spaceships teeheehee
I'm pretty sure it's called science [b][i]fiction[/i][/b] for a reason.
Halo isn't exactly realistic when it comes to ship designs. It's better than most games and series, but it's still very made up. The huge engines on the UNSC ships would need fuel storage the size of Texas to use for more than a few minutes.
Realistic combat ships would likely be based on the Project Orion (Nuclear pulse propulsion), which is basically a big hunk of armor with a ship strapped on one end, and nuclear bombs are tossed out the back and blown up for propulsion.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/m0hzb.jpg[/IMG]
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
Real combat ships would also likely be very skeletal, unlike the UNSC ships. Having huge armor slabs just adds unnecessary mass, because in space, pretty much anything that can reach your ship will destroy it instantly.
[t]http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs36/f/2008/256/5/3/HMS_Belfast_by_Radojavor.jpg[/t]
[editline]29th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=patq911;34440858][IMG]http://images.wikia.com/memoryalpha/en/images/7/78/Borg_cube_CGI_second_variant.jpg[/IMG]
Why do ships have to be logical? Heck the Borg Cube was just a cube, but it was still one of the most deadly things in Star Trek. If it works, it doesn't have to be pretty.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Spheres have the largest enclosed volume for the smallest surface area of any shape, which is a major advantage where every gram of structural mass is a penalty. They also have a smaller moment of inertia for yaw and pitch maneuvers. Drawbacks are the opposite of the cylinder: they are only slightly more aerodynamic than a brick, they don't shadow shield well, and they are lousy tumbling pigeons.
Spheres also require more internal support structure than cylinder to handle the same acceleration load, particularly if you're going to be putting decks inside of it that rely on the structural framework of the spheroidal hull for rigidity. Cylinders under acceleration support themselves in the same manner as a skyscraper building, spheres need extra bracing to keep the equator from sagging. Of course this only becomes a problem if the acceleration is greater than a tenth of a gee, neither spheres nor cylinders have any problem coping with milligee acceleration.[/quote]
See also: [url]http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/advdesign.php#id--Shape--Sphere[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
