Disruptors or Phasers, pick your poison.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-31 06:54pm

brianeyci wrote:
Batman wrote:Bullshit. Around which axis you turn is entirely irrelevant to how hard it is to turn in zero-g.
Agreed.

Well, that's something.

The very same Enterprise (which was scheduled for decomission and is unlikely to have received any repairs during ST III, especially given the short time it was in spacedock) managed a 180 degree turnover after exiting spacedock. Damaged thrusters my ass.
The Enterprise crew herself could have repaired some of the thrusters before reaching spacedock. The thing you are trying to do is say "Kirk was stupid, because he didn't approach the Reliant from underneath or above" We should exhaust all other possible options before resorting to stupidity.

WHY? If we are given no in-universe reasons for them acting stupidly why should we NOT assume stupidity on part of the characters?
THERE WAS NEVER SHOWN AN IN-UNIVERSE REASON FOR STARSHIPS NOT TO APPROACH EACH OTHER THAT WAY.
Why should I asume anything but stupidity on Kirk's part?

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2004-11-01 02:40am

First Pic
Notice where Yar's phaser beam originates: on the extreme right hand side of her phaser emitter. <[Out of Universe: I find it interesting that the emitter is a parabolic dish, and a left slanting beam would originate from the right side of the dish--assuming you want the beam to emitt normal to the emitter surface. It makes me wonder if the effects people did that purposefully]>
Second Pic
Notice again Yar's phaser beam: it originates from the center of the emitter where it ought to. [I feel like pointing out I hate the "Dustbuster" type II phasers, they have no shape to them and I really can't tell how Yar is holding the damn thing. The red line is supposed to be where she is pointing the weapon, minus 3D coming out of the screen effects, but I am much more confident of the second picture, and even then a little shakey.]
You might notice the first picture (cropped, see brianeyci's post above for full version) has everyone holding their phasers left handed. They all point to the right of their target, and the beams compensate. Data often uses his left hand in the first two seasons, and he uses it again in the second shot, although Yar at least has switched to her right by then. In the second shot, as far as I can tell, Yar is pointing above the target only--the beam is centered left-right, but not up-down.

Yar's first shot points to the right of her target by several degrees, evidenced by the sharply-left angle her phaser beam makes relative to the emitter.
That first beam originates on the far right hand side of her emitter dish and angles to the left several degrees allowing a successful hit.
This shot is made by Yar's off hand, helping to explain the poor marksmanship. This applies to Riker's similarly poor shot as well.
Yar's second shot appears to be more centered left-right, with the deviant phaser beam angle residing in the vertical plane more than the horizontal. This downward angle is common with the "Dustbuster" model, and may represent a custom modification to fit the wrist.
This second shot originates from the center of the emitter.
This shot, apparently more accurate (particularly considering possible custom default angles for wrist comfort), is made with Yar's right hand.

Yar shot her phaser several degrees to the right of her target, yet hit successfully. Later in the same episode--using the same phaser--she shot several degrees above her target, yet hit successfully.
If this is a manufacturing error, I find it curious that Yar's, Riker's and Data's phasers all angled to the left, each one hitting the target anyway, and later Yar's phaser angles downwards but not left, and she still hits.
What I conclude: "assisted aiming" of some nature.

Ok, I have a question:
We have screen caps of phasers shooting wildly off axis in equally wildly various directions and degrees of severity. We also see hits on a variety of targets at various ranges and relative speeds over the course of the different series. I have seen two attempts to explain this:

some form of diliberate mechanism to aim where the phaser is not pointed, and

"shoddy manufacturing," which essentially attributes every last successful hit in all examples of phaser fire to pure luck.

Forgive me for wondering, but why is the former not preferred?

And if it is prefered, why is an automatic "assisted aiming" idea so contested? There is no joystick on a phaser, no way to aim the beam manually without pointing the damn thing where you want it to fire. The only way to explain a diliberate variable off axis mechanism is through an automatic system involving sensors and computers within the phaser itself. "Assisted aiming" is a logical conclusion to me, I wonder why it is contested in the face of the evidence?

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2004-11-01 11:45am

Batman wrote: WHY? If we are given no in-universe reasons for them acting stupidly why should we NOT assume stupidity on part of the characters?
THERE WAS NEVER SHOWN AN IN-UNIVERSE REASON FOR STARSHIPS NOT TO APPROACH EACH OTHER THAT WAY.
Why should I asume anything but stupidity on Kirk's part?

the major problem would be that typically, you'd be detected and your target would turn to bring weapons to bear on you before you could hit them unexpectedly. The only reason why it worked in the nebula was because it not only interfered with shields, it also blocked sensors, so Kahn couldn't know that Kirk was approaching from below and take appropriate measures.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 11:56am

Matt Huang wrote:
Batman wrote: WHY? If we are given no in-universe reasons for them acting stupidly why should we NOT assume stupidity on part of the characters?
THERE WAS NEVER SHOWN AN IN-UNIVERSE REASON FOR STARSHIPS NOT TO APPROACH EACH OTHER THAT WAY.
the major problem would be that typically, you'd be detected and your target would turn to bring weapons to bear on you before you could hit them unexpectedly.

WTF? That applies no matter hat direction you aproach from. Why should a starship approaching from above/below be any easier to detect than one approaching from the front or side?

The only reason why it worked in the nebula was because it not only interfered with shields, it also blocked sensors, so Kahn couldn't know that Kirk was approaching from below and take appropriate measures.

But that's just it:Kirk DIDN'T approach from below. He aproached from BEHIND. He dipped a little relative to Reliant, which confused the oh so intelligent Khan, then came back up BEHIND him when approaching from directly below would have given Kirk a much larger target profile (and a much easier shot at the nacelles if that was what they wanted).

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 01:16pm

Ok, I have a question:
We have screen caps of phasers shooting wildly off axis in equally wildly various directions and degrees of severity. We also see hits on a variety of targets at various ranges and relative speeds over the course of the different series.

We can also produce screenshots of people missing at close range (for that matter, all uses of phasers in TNG were at close range, often extremely close), and you will find that the gun's axis is sufficiently close to the target that it should hit if this system works as advertised. It's easy to cherry-pick, isn't it?

It also bears noting that all of these "proofs" of auto-aiming are based on the dustbuster phasers or worse yet, the Lady Shaver phasers: both devices for which it is extremely difficult to trace an accurate angle along the barrel because the whole fucking thing is rounded with nothing to pick off accurate angles from. So you simply draw cartoon lines on them to say where you sort of estimate them to be pointing.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 02:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:It also bears noting that all of these "proofs" of auto-aiming are based on the dustbuster phasers or worse yet, the Lady Shaver phasers: both devices for which it is extremely difficult to trace an accurate angle along the barrel because the whole fucking thing is rounded with nothing to pick off accurate angles from. So you simply draw cartoon lines on them to say where you sort of estimate them to be pointing.

Wong, obviously this has been done to death before -- you've been around long enough to see everything and so have a lot of others. Is there someone who has actually done a whole shitload of calcs on the angles of phaser fire? If there is I would like to see them... have you done your own calcs?

I don't see a problem with the cartoon lines as long as someone picked a single reference point and used it consistently throughout all the screenshots. For example why not pick two points, and use the same two points to calculate angles on a large sample size of screenshots?

Brian

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 02:43pm

brianeyci wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It also bears noting that all of these "proofs" of auto-aiming are based on the dustbuster phasers or worse yet, the Lady Shaver phasers: both devices for which it is extremely difficult to trace an accurate angle along the barrel because the whole fucking thing is rounded with nothing to pick off accurate angles from. So you simply draw cartoon lines on them to say where you sort of estimate them to be pointing.
Wong, obviously this has been done to death before -- you've been around long enough to see everything and so have a lot of others. Is there someone who has actually done a whole shitload of calcs on the angles of phaser fire? If there is I would like to see them... have you done your own calcs?

Calculations are useless without reasonably reliable measurements. Garbage in, garbage out.

I don't see a problem with the cartoon lines as long as someone picked a single reference point and used it consistently throughout all the screenshots. For example why not pick two points, and use the same two points to calculate angles on a large sample size of screenshots?

Because it is very difficult to accurately put points on non-orthogonal views of geometric features on objects without any sharp corners or right angles. I grow weary of you demanding that I point out the obvious.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:05pm

The busted thrusters was a stretch on my part. I figured out another way to explain why Kirk wouldn't have approached the Reliant from different angles.

You are Kirk. You want to capture Reliant. You decide the best way to disable it with minimum enemy casualties is to do the following,

1. Destroy/damage one of the Reliant's warp nacelles.
2. Destroy the Reliant's torpedo tube launcher box (the square box in the center of the weapons bar).

You want to do this because you want to capture Reliant. Your phaser lock is inoperative, so you want the largest surface area to target your phasers. As well, your torpedoes can't home well, so you want your torpedo launchers to be aligned with whatever you are going to shoot at.

You bring up a schematic of a Miranda.

Miranda
(From Bernd's site, hosted on my webspace)

If you approached from the front, you would have a good shot at the torpedo launcher. But so would the Reliant at you. This is obviously the worst choice.

If you approach the Miranda directly from the bottom, you would likely have the safest approach. But then, you would have a small surface area to target your phasers on the nacelles. And you couldn't even hit the torpedo launcher.

If you approach the Miranda directly from the top, you would have a good shot at the torpedo launcher. But you wouldn't have a bad shot against the nacelles since the surface area would be small.

If you approach the Miranda directly from the back, you would have a good shot against the torpedo launcher. But you wouldn't have a good shot against the nacelles since the surface area would be small.

If you approached the Miranda directly from one of the sides, you would have the best shot against the nacelles, and a pretty good shot against the torpedo launcher. But you want to hit the box, not blow off the whole weapons bar.

You choose phasers against the nacelles, and torpedoes against the Miranda's torpedo tube launcher. Therefore, you have to line up your torpedo launcher with Miranda's torpedo launcher, and your phasers with the largest surface area of the Miranda's nacelles. You have to choose the best approach angle so your torpedoes and phasers have the best shots against their respective targets. The back is the best way to align the torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher box. The side is the best way to align your phasers with the largest surface area of the nacelles. So you choose to approach from the back and slightly to the side, for a good shot with your torpedo launcher and your phasers.

(From Bernd's site, hosted on my own webspace)

Lo and behold, you are in position. You are not perfectly aligned, but that is okay. Your torpedo launcher is aligned with their torpedo launcher box. Your phasers are even able to hit the Miranda's torpedo tube launchers along with your torpedoes, and you blow off a warp nacelle with the phasers. Captain Kirk would have been proud of you.

Brian

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 03:10pm

That's all well and good but the simple fact is that shot never appeared in the movie. The Enterprise simply rose up directly behind the Reliant and took out the torpedoe launchers with a torpedo, destroyed the nacelle with a phaser shot then blew it off with another torpedo shot.

Did you even watch the movie?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:12pm

Kirk was willing to deliberately risk his ship and the lives of his crew in order to undertake the vastly more difficult task of capturing Defiant rather than destroying it, even though its original crew had all been offloaded already? That's news to me.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Because it is very difficult to accurately put points on non-orthogonal views of geometric features on objects without any sharp corners or right angles. I grow weary of you demanding that I point out the obvious.

My apologies. I was requesting, not demanding, and I believe that was my first direct request to you. Sorry, didn't think for a moment before opening my big trap.

Brian

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:16pm

Stravo wrote:That's all well and good but the simple fact is that shot never appeared in the movie. The Enterprise simply rose up directly behind the Reliant and took out the torpedoe launchers with a torpedo, destroyed the nacelle with a phaser shot then blew it off with another torpedo shot.

Did you even watch the movie?

Yes, that's why I was surprised that there was a phaser hit on the weapons bar when I remembered none. Didn't realize that shot was an artist's conception.

My point still stands about the torpedoes hitting the torpedo tube launcher, and the phaser hitting the nacelles.

Darth Wong wrote:Kirk was willing to deliberately risk his ship and the lives of his crew in order to undertake the vastly more difficult task of capturing Defiant rather than destroying it, even though its original crew had all been offloaded already? That's news to me.

Why not? After Reliant had been disabled, Kirk send a "surrender and prepare to be boarded." Maybe that was his plan all along. It is consistent with Kirk's character to want to capture Reliant rather than outright destroy it.

Brian

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:23pm

brianeyci wrote:Why not? After Reliant had been disabled, Kirk send a "surrender and prepare to be boarded." Maybe that was his plan all along.

If you disable a ship, you always send that message. It does not logically follow that you must have been pulling your punches up to that point because you were so afraid of destroying it that you would willingly risk the lives of your crew to prevent its destruction.

It is consistent with Kirk's character to want to capture Reliant rather than outright destroy it.

BULLSHIT. Do you know Star Trek at all? Kirk would never risk sacrificing the lives of his crew for such reasons.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 03:24pm

You just said your point still stands. You said in your OP:

brianeyci wrote:You choose phasers against the nacelles, and torpedoes against the Miranda's torpedo tube launcher. Therefore, you have to line up your torpedo launcher with Miranda's torpedo launcher, and your phasers with the largest surface area of the Miranda's nacelles. You have to choose the best approach angle so your torpedoes and phasers have the best shots against their respective targets. The back is the best way to align the torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher box. The side is the best way to align your phasers with the largest surface area of the nacelles. So you choose to approach from the back and slightly to the side, for a good shot with your torpedo launcher and your phasers.

IMAGE SNIPPED

Lo and behold, you are in position. You are not perfectly aligned, but that is okay. Your torpedo launcher is aligned with their torpedo launcher box. Your phasers are even able to hit the Miranda's torpedo tube launchers along with your torpedoes, and you blow off a warp nacelle with the phasers. Captain Kirk would have been proud of you.

Brian

Hold on a sec, you just went into this long winded description of how best to approach the Reliant - lo and behold and all this other nonsense and when you're point is refuted you still stick to your original point? You just said that the best angle of approach is back to the side to get the best hits possible, you're proven wrong about the circumstances of the attack and sequence of events and you say that your point still stands??

I'd like to know how that is.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:35pm

Stravo wrote:Hold on a sec, you just went into this long winded description of how best to approach the Reliant - lo and behold and all this other nonsense and when you're point is refuted you still stick to your original point? You just said that the best angle of approach is back to the side to get the best hits possible, you're proven wrong about the circumstances of the attack and sequence of events and you say that your point still stands??

I'd like to know how that is.

My long-winded explaination explaination started out like this,

brianeyci wrote:You choose phasers against the nacelles, and torpedoes against the Miranda's torpedo tube launcher.

and ended like this,

brianeyci wrote:Your phasers are even able to hit the Miranda's torpedo tube launchers along with your torpedoes.

So if the phasers didn't hit the Miranda's torpedo tube launchers, no problem just cut that one sentence out and the image, and my argument stands. If in the movie Kirk aligned his torpedo tube launcher against the torpedo tube launcher and used phasers against the nacelles, that is what I proposed,

brianeyci wrote:You choose phasers against the nacelles, and torpedoes against the Miranda's torpedo tube launcher. Therefore, you have to line up your torpedo launcher with Miranda's torpedo launcher, and your phasers with the largest surface area of the Miranda's nacelles. You have to choose the best approach angle so your torpedoes and phasers have the best shots against their respective targets. The back is the best way to align the torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher box. The side is the best way to align your phasers with the largest surface area of the nacelles. So you choose to approach from the back and slightly to the side, for a good shot with your torpedo launcher and your phasers.

Brian

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:38pm

brianeyci wrote:You choose phasers against the nacelles, and torpedoes against the Miranda's torpedo tube launcher. Therefore, you have to line up your torpedo launcher with Miranda's torpedo launcher, and your phasers with the largest surface area of the Miranda's nacelles. You have to choose the best approach angle so your torpedoes and phasers have the best shots against their respective targets. The back is the best way to align the torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher box. The side is the best way to align your phasers with the largest surface area of the nacelles. So you choose to approach from the back and slightly to the side, for a good shot with your torpedo launcher and your phasers.

They shot the nacelles from behind, not from the side. And you still have no excuse for your bizarre proposition that Kirk was willing to throw away the lives of his crew to protect the lives of Khan's men.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 03:39pm

Brian, Kirk did NOT approach from 'back and slightly to the side'. He approached from DEAD ASTERN.
BTW, the best appproach if you're going specifically for the nacelle and photorp launcher is from directly abroad and slightly above.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:41pm

Darth Wong wrote:If you disable a ship, you always send that message. It does not logically follow that you must have been pulling your punches up to that point because you were so afraid of destroying it that you would willingly risk the lives of your crew to prevent its destruction.

Agreed, the point I made is invalid.

BULLSHIT. Do you know Star Trek at all? Kirk would never risk sacrificing the lives of his crew for such reasons.

I disagree, mainly because I don't see that much of a risk compared with approaching the Reliant from the bottom or from the back and to the side. The Enterprise wasn't perfectly lined up with Reliant's torpedo tube launcher, and Khan had already shot a torpedo at Kirk before and it shot downwards. Maybe Kirk was aware of the firing alignment of the aft torpedo launchers on the Miranda. So approaching from the bottom means Khan's torpedoes and phasers can't hit, but if approaching from the back and to the side means Khan's phasers and torpedoes can't hit and you can disable the Reliant, why not approach from the back and to the side?

Brian

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 03:44pm

Brian just what are you arguing? Kirk DID NOT approach the Reliant from back and to the side. So when you say you disagree with Mike what exactly is it you're disagreeing with?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 03:45pm

brianeyci wrote:
BULLSHIT. Do you know Star Trek at all? Kirk would never risk sacrificing the lives of his crew for such reasons.
I disagree, mainly because I don't see that much of a risk compared with approaching the Reliant from the bottom or from the back and to the side. The Enterprise wasn't perfectly lined up with Reliant's torpedo tube launcher, and Khan had already shot a torpedo at Kirk before and it shot downwards. Maybe Kirk was aware of the firing alignment of the aft torpedo launchers on the Miranda. So approaching from the bottom means Khan's torpedoes and phasers can't hit, but if approaching from the back and to the side means Khan's phasers and torpedoes can't hit and you can disable the Reliant, why not approach from the back and to the side?

Problem: We KNOW Reliant can shoot backwards and to the side, because she repeatedly does so during the movie.
Whereas we NEVER see her fire a weapon directly downward.
Oh, and Kirk did NOT approach from back and to the side, but from DEAD ASTERN.

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:50pm

Batman wrote:Brian, Kirk did NOT approach from 'back and slightly to the side'. He approached from DEAD ASTERN.
BTW, the best appproach if you're going specifically for the nacelle and photorp launcher is from directly abroad and slightly above.

So are you saying this,

E (front)

-----------------------------M (front)

If you lined up your torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher that way, wouldn't you have a hard shot on the nacelles?

My mistake with the back and to the side was because I thought that artist's conception represented what happened in the movie. I offer this screenshot from Section31.com (this time from screencaps in the movie),

Brian

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-01 03:51pm

The Enterprise is easily within the Reliant's aft torpedo launcher cone of fire in that picture, dumb-ass.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-11-01 03:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:The Enterprise is easily within the Reliant's aft torpedo launcher cone of fire in that picture, dumb-ass.

Which is why his continual argument on this point is giving me a headache. what IS the point??

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2004-11-01 03:53pm

Stravo wrote:Brian just what are you arguing? Kirk DID NOT approach the Reliant from back and to the side. So when you say you disagree with Mike what exactly is it you're disagreeing with?

Lol I was in the middle of typing out my post when Batman told me that the Enterprise didn't approach from the back and the side.

I'm disagreeing with "Kirk not wanting to risk his crew to capture Reliant" idea, mainly because I don't see that much more risk to capture Reliant rather than destroy it if you approach it from the right angle.

So what other explaination is left? Is Kirk tactically inept? I could still see the same theory working, but with Kirk wanting to align the torpedo launchers with Reliant's torpedo launchers, and wanting to get a decent phaser shot off against the nacelles therby foregoing approaching from top.

Brian

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-11-01 03:54pm

brianeyci wrote:
Batman wrote: BTW, the best appproach if you're going specifically for the nacelle and photorp launcher is from directly abroad and slightly above.
So are you saying this,
E (front)
-----------------------------M (front)
If you lined up your torpedo launcher with the Miranda's torpedo launcher that way, wouldn't you have a hard shot on the nacelles?

Why? Position your ship so your photorp launcher is in line with Reliant's. Point your phasers at the nacelle. They don't have to fire straight ahead, you know.