Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

I was visiting Battlestar Galactica.com and came acrossed the story:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To read the whole thing Aticle

For those of you who do not know, Richard Hatch and company, (Original stars of BSG) have been, for years, trying to revive the series. They even made a promo movie a few years back that was widely phraised at conventions and such. (Damn good job I thought)

Any whoo, this is great news, and one that many people have been looking forward to since the late 70's. (We won't talk about the 80's series)

[ June 21, 2002, 08:13: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

A serious question. I always knew about Galactica but was never into it until I rented one of their tapes @ Hollywood... now it has me wondering: What did they fooken do in the 80's? LOL I never heard of this part, so can someone give me a nice solid rant about the 80's Galactica so I can get up to speed? LOL

BTW - I am impressed that old Captain Apollo is supporting it so strongly, I half wondered if he was dead by now, **** it was like 20 years ago.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

The 80's series took place 20 years after the events that occured in the 70's show. Apollo was dead, so was Starbuck. They found earth and discovered that we were primatives, current day.

So they decided to leave. However, a shuttle with a group of kids is forced to crash land on Earth, and that is the premise for the show. It had 1 good episode in it, and that starred Dirk Benidict (Starbuck) It explained how he died.

The 80's serises sucked horribly. They tried, but just could not pull it together. Correction, they did have a couple of good episodes. One was were a guy went back in time to try and "improve" Earths history by helping the Nazi's win the war. He was stopped.

[ June 20, 2002, 22:30: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

The only one I liked was when the cylons showed you in new york.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Ok, this one makes me delurk once again.

To me, BSG is in the same Category as SEIV, maddingly close to pure genius. But that’s a different topic.

BSG Lasted precisely one season, faced rushed production, and never got a chance to “gel.” Despite that, the show really had a special magic to it, and had some terrific episodes and ideas. Who can forget the “other” battlestar, the Pegasus. The ship of light, the eastern alliance. More forgettable was the cowboy episode with the silver western hats.

After BSG was cancelled in 79, it was revived in 1980 on a lower budget. BSG 1980 in a word, sucked. To add a few more words, add on “really bad.” The kiddies were not the premise to the show, it was in fact, the Last shown episode. BSG 1980 assumed they fleet reached earth, and was hovering around it. The Cylons couldn’t figure out which planet it was, so … well, its almost embarrassing that I know the plot line.

Most agree that BSG 1980 never happened.

Richard Hatch has been pushing for a revival for several years now, and wanted to pick up the first season 20 years later with the same actors. After several false starts, the series is going to start over with new actors as a “reimagined” instead of a continuation.

While starting over will allow some of the goofy elements to be terminated, I think picking up where the original series left off would have been the better choice.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I loved that episode. The Cylon - "Ut oh" at seeing that Apollo had a gun too. Oh the special feeling you get when you remember those forgotten memories.

GOD I MISS that show.

Well at least Richard's books can take care of the Original series, and I hear that there will be many cameos. At least I would hope that the producers would do that as homage to Hatches work and respect to the original cast.

Athena was very hot. My first crush. Then Wilma from Buck Rogers. Oh ya......

But one can't help remembering what happened with B5 after it went to cable Tv. *shudder* TNT really fouled that up.

[ June 21, 2002, 08:12: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Well, I hope they "re-imagine" that damn robot dog and the kid with the basin haircut right out of this Version. But they won't. They'll have a whole planet of stupid CGI robot dogs, all falling over humourously and talking in stupid goofy voices. You see what you've done, Jar-jar? DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE?

*sob*

As for Wilma: *Off- think, off-think, off-think*

(Didn't we have this conversation before?)

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Oh my GOD *lmfao* That was a robot? Ok true story, my first episode, and only episode recently watched, was the Long Patrol... and 5 minutes into it I shut the ****er off!! *lmao* I saw what I thought was the ugliest, most annoying alien muppet ever to appear on film, and couldnt watch any further. Eventually I ran through all the twilight zone and tales from the crypt tapes and ended up re-watching the Galactica episode... I actually liked it, the Ambrosia planet with self-willed prisons.

But that fooken coked-out Miss Piggy looken thing, ahh man *LMAO* That needs to GO.

I love how Starbuck plays the two girls, amazing for the censorship of the time period.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Funniest thing about that damn robot-dog thing was it's name. Was it "Muffet" or "Muffy"? *lmao* Something like that...

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

I'm another one enjoyed the 70's Version, couldn't stand the 80's Version, the two were like seperate entities they just didn't jive and the writers wrote crumby scripts... I hope if they re-do they stay with the original Version, They could make it excellent with todays graphic and computer techology but it all comes down to money..... as with everything else.. good luck to them if they can get it going again. My son and I have almost all of the episodes on vhs except for the 80's ones, didn't like them and just quit watching it after being disappointed.

just some ideas mac

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

It wasn't a robot dog, it was a robot daggit.

In one Richard Hatch interview, he stated that in his remake, the robo-daggit was vaporized by a viper exhaust.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

I LOVED the show as a kid. The early arc of the show was the best, up to where they discover Kobol. Eastern alliance arc was pretty good as well. The execs who rushed the late season episodes should have been shot. They got desperate as the Ratings dropped and the story line suffered (i.e., bring in a guest star (Fred Astaire!) as Starbuck's father---then copy the movies and have "Towering Inferno" & "Force 10 from Navarone" in space). The Lords of Light arc was pretty cool though, and yes, Maren Jensen (Athena) was incredibly HOT, too bad they almost totally ignored her toward the end of the series. The actual ship and the vipers were great, hope they remain similiar.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

The Dagget was actually a monkey in costume. Seriously. I wonder why the series failed? I mean it had a lot to offer, but it was canned.

Does anybody remember the mistake? The reason the series was cancelled was not all brought on by Ratings dips, but the producers were sued by George Lucas, The show was very costly to produce, and the sponsors were scared by the content and thus were not willing to pay a lot for advertising.

The same thing happened, without the lawsuit, to another fine sci fi series about a decade earlier. Star Trek.

Yet, they both survive in one form or another. Lets just hope that BSG can get up and running again.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Oh man. Remeber those goofy flying motorcycles from BSG 1980? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif "Space CHiPs" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo

[ June 21, 2002, 12:02: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

From what I either read or heard, can't remember from that far back, was that the producers did not really want the show and did everything they could to shoot it down including cutting financing. I don't remember where I heard/read it at the time, but the main reason the 80's stunk, was that the producers wanted it done away with.
Can't remembeer all the facts but that's what it was in a nutshell....

just some ideas mac

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Atrocities -- you actually got to see Hatch's trailer??? Cool...what's it like? I saw all the screenshots, but I haven't attended any sci-fi cons, so I never got to see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Too bad Baltar (John Calicos?) died. I heard he was in the trailer, too.

I always appreciated Galactica because it had story arcs; there was overlapping and things changed. Shows could stand alone, but if you'd seen previous episodes, there was continuation. Like one big story. Unfortunately, Andromeda's starting to move away from that formula. B5 was great until the move to TNT and since I don't have cable I lost it.

zen

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Yes I saw it. It was really cool. Very well done for the short time it Lasted. I was, um, very tanked at the time I saw it, and spent the next few days wondering if I had actually seen a "lost" episode of BSG, or imagined the whole thing... It wasn't until a year later when I discovered that I hadn't imagined it, that I really did see it, and that it was a promo to generate interest in a revival. The neat thing about it, was the EVERYONE, was in it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif (Say for Loren Green. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) I don't remember seeing John in the it. Then again, like I said, I was tanked.

[ June 23, 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

LOL...cool! Too bad there's no way of being able to see that trailer short of finding out where Richard Hatch will be next. And to go slightly off-topic, did anyone else think of Apollo first whenever they mentioned Richard Hatch as the winner of Survivor? I'm such a geek. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Now there's a drinking game for ya -- every time they replay stock footage of the Galactica, squadron of Vipers or Raiders, or a fighter launch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

zen

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">good god man, dont do that with the final episode! "launch all the vipers!" and you are sitting there for at least five minutes watching the same freaking footage of vipers clearing the launch tubes.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Has anyone ever noticed that the "Battlestar" Galactica is really just an aircraft carrier under a thin veneer of SciFi gadgetry? I mean, the vipers defy space physics by banking and turning in curves as if they had atmosphere to lean on, and they have to 'land' on the decks as if there was gravity out there. Now even if you accept that there is internal artificial gravity how do they enter this 'artificial' gravity so abruptly as we see them do in the landing sequences? They just glide into this huge open hatch and land as if they were planes on a carrier deck. If there really was a gravity field inside the ship they'd hit it like a wall and suddenly bang down on the deck. It's downright bizarre if you care anything about scientific realism or even consistency.

As interesting as certain aspects of BSG were, it was pretty cheesy. But then BSG 1980 was too awful for words...

[ June 25, 2002, 03:03: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

yeah, startrek always did it alot better.

...

ever notice how 95% of sci-fi tv/movies/games recreate WWII technology and tactics and throw it in space? speaking of which, the GNB mod looks pretty darn cool, and i cant wait to see it after mounts can be researched.

i cant imagine realistic superscience being that fun to play in a game. big red buttons, computers, long range weapons destroying planets from lightyears away. face it, as soon as we can travel at FTL speeds, we will be able to kill things over ridiculous distances at the same speed. these games are all anacronisim, but i like em anyway.

[ June 25, 2002, 04:16: Message edited by: Puke ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

It would depend how the FTL drive works Puke..Warp Points as described in SE4 wouldn't do anything of the sort.

Now, a large rock traveling at 500c.. THAT would maje an impact.

Phoenix-D

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Baron Munchausen perhaps they operate by a set of phyics that we have not yet discovered? Their technology is based upon technology we do not understand. Perhaps that is why the Vipers can "bank." To give them a tatical advantage over the Cyclon fighters.

If you take our own history, and take an Aircraft carriar of today back to WWI era, they would not under stand the physics and technology of it or the aircraft that it carries.

Ever wonder how life could evolve on a planet with a metane atomosphere? The moment they created flame, kaboooooom!

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe they just bank cause if they didn't you would have colonial warrior puree all over the inside of the cowling. The vipers move similer to how an aircraft in an aptmosphere would because that lessens the impact of the G forces on the body of the pilot. Plus it looks really cool... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

As far as travelling in curves and arcs, I am pretty sure that vectors of movement and inertia of mass apply in zero G as well as in aptmosphere and gravity. If an object is travelling in a straight line in space and then changes direction of thrust, it won't simply change direction of movement at sharp anlges. It's path will curve, will it not? Isn't that pretty much the whole reason calculus was invented?

That isn't defying physics, and aircraft don't change direction in curves because of "leaning" on atmosphere. They do it for the same reason ships in space do it, because it takes time to overcome inertia and change directions.

In fact, an aircraft in an atmosphere theoretically could turn at a sharper angle because it can change the angle of attack of it's wings and bank into the turn. This will add the wings lift to the thrust of the engines in changing vectors. It's not a big difference, and it takes a lot of skill and a really well designed aircraft. But a viper in a vacuum would have no such assistance. It would have only it's engines for forward thrust and some kind of reaction jets or moveable thrust cowling for direction changes.

(Btw, I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I play one on T.V. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Geo

[ June 25, 2002, 14:22: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Well, if the thrust was not coming out of the back of the Viper that explanation might make some sense... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I guess 'realistic' space physics would be too boring for 'mass entertainment media', so we're doomed to stupid fantasy physics in any SciFi shows or movies...

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't see this as a problem either. Of course you have to assume they figured out some means of generating artificial gravity, cause otherwise it's a moot point. But you said as much yourself. Once you have that hurdle crossed then there are a couple things that could easily explain the rest of it and would be perfectly reasonable.

The artificial gravity fields could be areas on the hanger deck. Why do you assume the entire deck would have the same gravity field everywhere? You could have areas of little or no gravity for the ships to land and move about by thrusters, and then parking pads where the gravity is normal for walking in and out of the ship. And the gravity in the parking pads could be switched on and off when needed.

You could also assume that the gravity field IS uniform across the whole surface of the hanger deck, but that it only extends upwards a few feet. Things in contact with the deck, people walking around, etc. would stay in contact as they are under normal gravity. But a ship taliking off or landing would feel less and less gravity the farther it got from the surface. Similer to how it is on Earth, but the artificial gravity force would drop off much more rapidly. Instead of needing to travel a few miles to break free, you would only need to travel a few feet to break free from the artifical gravity field.

This would have some odd effects on the people walking around. They would have a slight but perceptable differance in the "weight" of their feet compared to their heads. But with time and training people would adapt and get their "Space legs" and it would not affect them. People watching them move about would not even be able to see a differance in their movements. Thrown objects would not travel in expected parabolic paths as you would see on a planet, but throwing things about a hanger deck isn't a good idea even in the surface Navy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you missed my point. What I am saying is that BG is more realistic than you are giving it credit for. I think you are misunderstanding the physics involved in moving about in zero G. The thrust, the majority of it anyway, would be coming out the back, otherwise you wouldn't be going forward. You would also apply side thrust, either by jets on the side of the nose, or by angling some of the thrust coming out the back, to turn the ship.

But however you turn it, your course is not going to change in sharp anlges, it's going to curve.

Banking and other orinetation changes will not have the effect they do on an aircraft, because there are no lift generating surfaces. But they will serve other purposes. Bringing weapons to bear, keeping the pilot in his seat and in control, etc.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

i liked the space physics in b5.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, B5 was often very realistic. You actually saw fighters swing around to reverse their thrust, and you could see maneuvering thrusters firing. There was some 'swooping and banking' but it was directly relatable to the direction of visible thrust. The ships in most SciFi from Star Wars to Buck Rogers to BSG behave as if they have an atmosphere.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ah, but the problem he was describing is the fact that those ships turn as if they had the main thrust coming out of the bottom, instead of the back.

The ship pulls up by 10 degrees, and ends up going directly forwards (10 degrees off the old course), and at the same speed as before.
To do that, you'd need a large thrust downwards (and a little bit of retro), and the main engines in the back certainly can't vector the thrust that much (&gt; 90 degrees!)

There also seems to be an awful lot unmodded SE4's Thrust = Speed in these shows, too.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

[quote]Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:

Quote:

The ships in most SciFi from Star Wars to Buck Rogers to BSG behave as if they have an atmosphere.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">*Sigh* Ok, one more time.

It's not atmosphere, it's inertia. You can't stop on a dime and change directions at 90 degree anlges. Well your ship might be able too, but you will be paste if you try it.

B5 combat has that appearance some times because of the camera angles they choose to use. Close in, moving in formation. From that perspective small shifts in vector or speed will be exagerated.

The others you mention all primarily use a more stationary or distant camera perspective. From there these manuvers would appear more curved, because they are actually curved in reality. You just can't see the curves when you are right up close to the action and moving as fast as the other ship.

Neither is any more inherantly correct or incorrect because in actuallity if they were viewed from the same perspective they would appear the same. You are being tricked by the different perspective. For the most part anyway.

One thing that you see in B5 you don't see in the others though is the ships flipping and rotating around a lot. That has nothing to do with direction of travel though. In that case there is no reason a viper with a cylon on it's tail couldn't simply turn 180 degrees and fly backwards. Except it would have to cut power it couldn't keep up it's acceleration and would be overtaken very quickly.

The ships in B5 do look more like space ships and less like airplanes than the others though, that is certainly true.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

[quote]Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

Quote:

The ship pulls up by 10 degrees, and ends up going directly forwards (10 degrees off the old course), and at the same speed as before. To do that, you'd need a large thrust downwards (and a little bit of retro), and the main engines in the back certainly can't vector the thrust that much (> 90 degrees!)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What? I am missing something here. If the thrust is pointed aft, your ships will go forward in a straight line. If your engines are on the back pointing aft, you will always move in the direction your nose is pointed. So if you want to go a different direction, you move your nose. Point your nose at something, fire engines aft, go there. Seems pretty simple and realistic. whether it's a ten degree course change or a 90 degree course change, the principle is the same.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Ok, here's a good example to demonstrate my point. Look at a gun camera from a present day fighter. And not the slowed down for TV films. The real thing, full speed. It will look like a bunch of planes zipping around changing directions and speeds at impossosible angles. But view the same manuvers from a few miles away on a slow moving aircraft, or from the ground and you will see lots of graceful curves. It's more to do with your pespective and speed relative to the action.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dean McLaughlin did a quite good treatment of this idea in "Hawk Among The Sparrows".

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are missing the STYLE of the change in direction. We are not talking about the arc of the fighter's movement, we are talking about the way it changes attitude in the process of that movement. In B5 you can see thrusters fire to make the fighter change attitude and then it starts to change velocity -- after the main thrusters have changed direction. In most other SciFi shows the fighters/ships just swoop nose first wherever the choreographers of the fight think they should go with no visible forces exerted as if they had an atmosphere to maneuver in! Get it? Invisible forces in space. It doesn't make sense.

[ June 25, 2002, 22:06: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

"Dean McLaughlin did a quite good treatment of this idea in "Hawk Among The Sparrows"."

Was that the story where the modern-day fighter pilot ends up in WW1, but gets screwed because his missiles won't lock onto wood planes? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Ok, I did misunderstand you then. I got hung up on your comment about the physics being wrong, when you actually aren't complaining about the physics as much as the lack of detail in the effects.

It actually doesn't take a lot to rotate a ship in a zero-G vacuum. Keep in mind you don't have much inertia to fight against just to reorient the ship. You aren't actually trying to move the ship against it's forward inertia, just turning it and flying straight in another direction. It's not extrodinary to think that the retro rockets wouldn't make a noticable exhaust plume. I guess I always just assumed it's there and just not immedietly visible.

Now if the viper had moving flaps and other atmopsheric control surfaces moving in correlation to it's space manuvers I would have to agree totally with you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

"You aren't actually trying to move the ship against it's forward inertia, just turning it and flying straight in another direction."

Umm, WHAT? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You kind of need to cancel the velocity from the first vector before/while doing another, otherwise you'll keep going that way. So if you turn around, point straight 'up' and just use the rear engine, you'll end up going diagnally forward.

Come to think of it, that sort of thing might be good to 'fake out' inexperienced pilots. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Phoenix-D

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No. That is only true if you fire your retro and cut your rear engine. If you fire your retro and fire your rear engine that will push you in the new direction.

Vipers are like the Appolo command module we used to get to the moon. They only fly one direction. straight ahead. To change course you fire a retro and rotate the ship. You are still aiming and flying straight ahead, it's just straight ahead is a different direction. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Your forward inertia does continue to carry you in your original direction until your main engine has canclled that completely and you are on your new course. That is the reason you can't change directions in sharp angles. It's inertia.

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why the air didn't leak out of the BSG's landing bays? They were wide open. Maybe a special force field?

The biggest problem with BSG is they didn't have the time or the backing to work out a few kinks and get their science straight. Moons floating around in space.... entering a new galaxy after traveling a few weeks at sublight speeds. And why in the world was there a gambling ship which would put Vegas to shame while there were shiploads of civilians living in squalor?

Despite its flaws, BSG still was a great show, and I hope the new series captures the magic of the original series.

BSG 1980 OTOH, was just horrid, but not horrid enough to make it funny. It was just baaaad.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

If I recall a small news article from back in the days..

BattleStar Galactica was one of the most expensive series ever produced, episodes were produced near the cost of the most expensive tv show pilot (about 600,000) known at the time - The Original Star Trek Pilot.
600k x 26 episodes a seasons... Expensive as hell...

But they pulled Ratings both in first airings and syndications.... Networks like that.

but there was a far greater evil... far far greater... and it was from a galaxy far, far, far, very damn far away...

Yes, Mighty Emperor George Lucas felt BSG was a direct rip-off of the Star Wars. And he sued them up one side and down the other with not 10, not 12, but 11 over-payed, high priced, foreign lawyers until the studios questioned the series seriously.

While BSG did eventully win the law battle... changes is the writer staff sent the writing quality to the crapper. Anyone remember the episode where they switch the lines for Apollo and Starbuck so that one could have the funny lines of a change.....

Those things really piss off fans (like in the case of Star Trek TNG & DS9 fans that watched Voyager and Enterprise) and the Ratings dropped and dropped.

Then the execs at the studio said "Kill them all...."

And George Lucas smelled the sweet sent of the burnt remains competition was pleased...

If I recall right, isn't Ron Moore of StarTrek TNG taking over for some of the writing team on the new BSG.

Also, Glen Larson has been fighting the studios for years to let him produce a series of movies. That is way Hatch hasn't got his series yet, Glen as bigger plans....

Now to physics, Star Trek pulled that banking in space crap too during DS9's Dominion War -With a GALAXY CLASS STARSHIP!

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's not a big difference, it's a HUGE difference. For example, an F-16 can perform a 9-G turn (until the pilot blacks out) using aerodynamic forces. Its thrust-weight ratio, however, is generally less than one so its acceleration using just the engine is less than 1 G.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOL, What happened with Enterprise? DS9 was my favorite, and I couldnt stand that god damn Voyager. But Ent Im actually half interested in. Not to mention its the only fooken thing on these days, someone needs to pick up and air DS9.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heh, I was pretty much talking out my behind there wasn't I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Aircraft almost exclusivly change directions by use of aerodynamic forces. I didn't mean engine thrust there at all. Or if I did I was nuts. I was trying to differentiate in my mind between the amount of vector change that is a result of manipulating the control sufraces, and the amount of vector change that is a result of banking so that the lift of the wing surface is pushing the aircraft in the direction you want to turn. But it's all so interrelated you would need to know a whole lot more about it than I do to separate those two elements.

I was trying to contrast that to a space ship in a vacuum where the "control surface" is a retro, and there is no lift. Got my self a little tied up. Thanks for pointing that out Krak. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The main wing control surfaces, the leading- and trailing-edge flaps, are used at low speed (takeoff and landing) to increase the wing's effective camber (curvature) to increase the lift. The other control surfaces are used to control the direction of the aircraft. At speed, vector change is accomplished by using the control surfaces to reorient the aircraft so that the wing lift provides the required force. In space, you would just use thrusters to reorient the main engine thrust vector and fire. It would take huge engines to maneuver effectively (dogfight) in space. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right, not to mention that by any process of propulsion that we can even theorize about it would take a tremendous amount of fuel to do the things they do in all these shows. Star Wars, BSG, B5, SAAB. They are all guilty of that "little fudge".

The Apollo space craft that went to the mooon and back travelled for several days, but all together the engines fired for what, maybe twenty minutes total? Including the launch from earth probably around twenty minutes. The rest was just inertia.

But space fighters are just so darn cool. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Yeah, we prefer to see what we understand, even if it's incorrect. Fighting in space will probably be unlike anything we're familiar with now if it occurs.

What's funny is that even now 'dog fights' hardly occur anymore. We've reached the point where long-range radars can spot incoming planes and missiles can be fired before there is any hope of direct engagement. Maybe when non-US airforces clash there are still dogfights, but right now we've got such an advantage over every other airforce in the world that I don't think our pilots have done anything but training dogfights for decades.

[ June 26, 2002, 22:08: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

[quote]Originally posted by Krakenup:

Quote:

It's not a big difference, it's a HUGE difference. For example, an F-16 can perform a 9-G turn (until the pilot blacks out) using aerodynamic forces. Its thrust-weight ratio, however, is generally less than one so its acceleration using just the engine is less than 1 G.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I know that both the F-15 and the F-16 can fly straight up for a considerable distance. I clearly recall that the F-15 can reach 50,000 feet faster than the Apollo moon rockets could. Is the difference really all attributable to the very slow vertical lift-off of the Apollo rockets? I'd have thought that the F-15 and F-16 would have a better thrust-weight ratio than "slightly" more than 1-1. They are suppose to be able to make a start down the runway & then flip the thing into vertical before they would have reached horizontal take-off speed.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

DS9, sadly, won't be picked up by many networks mainly because it went into a gray area of character development where good guy abd bad guy got mixed. While more realistic, it requires story arcs and such that dropped Ratings.

Voyager was supposed to fix that by have all episodes unrelated. That did even worse since all the characters were made to fit the writer's wet dreams.

What I'm hoping for is Berman to be reduced in power... ALOT so that trek can grow a bit. DS9 and TNG did well because Berman kinda stayed out of it, just handling the studio affairs and supervisor top level crap. He went nitty-gritty on Voyager for season 1-5 and that series went to crap, he totally abandoned Voyager for Enterprise in seasons 6 & 7 and that really sent it to the crapper.

Lesson to be learned- Berman is interested in money.

Re: Battlestar Galactica II (No Joke)
 

Bwahahaha... what do you think any studio is interested in? Trek went into the trash bin when Rodenberry died. Paramount was left in sole control of it. Berman may or may not be dumber than the average studio exec, but it'll be incredibly lucky to find one willing to let Trek be a SciFi show with real attempts at exploration and experimentation. It's just another cash cow with a formula to follow as far as the suits are concerned.

The only reason DS9 had any quality at all was that it was a rip-off of Babylon 5, designed to 'block' it's success. Strasczinsky (sp?) had pitched it to Paramount before being accepted at WB, and so they had the outline of the story arc to work with.

[ June 27, 2002, 14:22: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]