In terms of shape, firing arc, etc., one of the best and more practical designs for a starship in cinema

In terms of shape, firing arc, etc., one of the best and more practical designs for a starship in cinema.

Attached: Star-Destroyer_ab6b94bb.jpeg.jpg (1536x864, 354.12K)

my open gaping asshole.

stop trying to discuss and dive into a movie franchise that is targeted to 13 year old kids…it aint that deep white boy

>one of the best and more practical designs for a starship in cinema.
fucking gay. it just has to look cool
>cinema
i know you're a cock swallowing queer

There's no up and down in space, retard.
Don't build your bridge on a massive complex entirely separate and exposed from the rest of the ship.
Don't put your sensor facilities on said bridge.

Retard.

Sensors need line of sight, even in real life navy ships. The retard is you, faggot.

yeah, nevermind physics and pussy shit like that

In what way is physics a problem?

Space is not a scifi reskin of ww2 warfare, retard.
Retard.

*ahem*

Attached: USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701-A).jpg (438x228, 10.94K)

Oh awesome, how do your multi-solar-system sci fi sensors work again? Can you post the specs? Or are you a faggot, talking out his ass, because something didn't work the way he arbitrarily decided it should?

>engines connected via something very thin
>stardrive and saucer connected via something thin
Structurally unsound, any competent Romulan would knock it on its ass without plot-armor

>basically a naval vessel in space
its far too bulky for starters, and the command station shouldn't be so exposed

Raise shields.
Problems solved.

>and more practical designs for a starship in cinema
lol no

In a three-dimensional space where they don't have to worry about shit like gravity, air resistance, etc., why the FUCK wouldn't they put firearms on every side of the ship?

I know Star Trek is still pretty soft sci-fi but they at least tried for this shit. Plus later designs like the Sovereign class nailed the look while being at least a bit more practical.

Attached: EnterpriseE.jpg (1600x673, 946.08K)

>Structurally unsound
Every inch of the superstructure is supported by the structural integrity field tho and the deflector dish is always on.

the general shape is good but any star ship where the Bridge is exposed is dumb, real practical design the Bridge is going to be buried as deeply in the thickest part of the ship as possible, cameras can function just as well as windows and nothing in actual space happens within visual range anyway.

>why the FUCK wouldn't they put firearms on every side of the ship?
They use energy based weapons that draw power from the ship's reactor so the amount of turrets you can put on the thing is limited by the amount of power the reactor produces. It's more effective to put all the weapons into a single firing arc, and then maneuver the ship into a position where the enemy is in said firing arc, than to having a few limited weapons on each flank of the ship.

Star Wars ships have turrets that can fire behind the ship

Trek ships have the same exposed bridge design for no fucking reason, they then compound that by making their engines big honking exposed targets, now they at least have the excuse of not being primarily combat ships and when they made one in the Defiant it basically fixed these problems, but ever since then when ever Nutrek Starfleet makes a combat ship its the same fucking basic design as all their other ships. Fuck I miss DS9

Attached: enterprise bridge.jpg (720x540, 32.2K)

>why the FUCK wouldn't they put firearms on every side of the ship?
concentrated fire, nigger

ships are just flimsy pieces of metal that fall apart if a small asteroid sneezes on them. shields are the real defense and they are less concerned about shape.

>They use energy based weapons that draw power from the ship's reactor so the amount of turrets you can put on the thing is limited by the amount of power the reactor produces. It's more effective to put all the weapons into a single firing arc, and then maneuver the ship into a position where the enemy is in said firing arc, than to having a few limited weapons on each flank of the ship.
Aren't SW numbers supposed to be ridiculous, so you should be able to put turrets on multiple sides of the ship without compromising firepower too badly?

In fairness, that was basically a TOS-era thing. They got much better about the bridge thing with basically every ship past that era, or at least made it less obvious where exactly it was.

Ruined by the fact that the biggest guns are on the top and thus there's a lack of armaments on the bottom of the ship because muh battleships.

>ships are just flimsy pieces of metal that fall apart if a small asteroid sneezes on them. shields are the real defense and they are less concerned about shape.

they were obviously concerned about shape when they designed the Defiant, since it directly addressed the main vulnerabilities of the saucer + exposed engines of the vast majority of Trek ships

>In fairness, that was basically a TOS-era thing. They got much better about the bridge thing with basically every ship past that era, or at least made it less obvious where exactly it was.

not really, the bridge was still almost always in the same place, directly in the middle, highest point on "top" of the saucer(or as much as a top exists in space). They weren't just a bubble yeah but that probably has more to do with the increase in Ship and bridge size than anything else

Attached: enterprise D top.jpg (760x380, 21.96K)