Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://mail.ditl.org/forum/
Which is why we should not ignore the script.Tsukiyumi wrote:...And this entire argument boils back to the fact that the ILM crew didn't do their jobs right. I guess they didn't read the script.
I don't. I always go with dialogue over visuals because SFX can make mistakes. I'm just pissed that ILM dropped the ball and made what was supposed to be a battleship appear to have the armament of a frigate.m52nickerson wrote:Which is why we should not ignore the script.Tsukiyumi wrote:...And this entire argument boils back to the fact that the ILM crew didn't do their jobs right. I guess they didn't read the script.
It would have been cool has hell to see the Scimitar swoop in on the Enterprise disruptor bolts reigning in from all over.Tsukiyumi wrote: I don't. I always go with dialogue over visuals because SFX can make mistakes. I'm just pissed that ILM dropped the ball and made what was supposed to be a battleship appear to have the armament of a frigate.
I don't have a problem with doing that, but as soon as RL issues come into the debate it ceases to be a discussion of the Scimitar's capabilities and becomes a discussion of Paramount/ILM/B&B. From a perspective of "was Nemesis a good film" I entirely agree that we should have seen the sort of firepower implied by the script - that this thing has dozens of weapons and could rip the E-E apart in five seconds flat if it wanted to. Although the poor SFX are hardly the worst flaws in the film.Tsukiyumi wrote:I don't. I always go with dialogue over visuals because SFX can make mistakes. I'm just pissed that ILM dropped the ball and made what was supposed to be a battleship appear to have the armament of a frigate.
No we don't, because then we could get into the debate of how the battle was filmed. Was it reconstructed from sensor readings, if so can't they be suspect? Was the footage cut, if so what was missing? Was the footage totally complete?Captain Seafort wrote: If, however, we're discussing the Scimitar's capabilities from an in-universe perspective bad SFX simply doesn't exist. We must treat what we saw as documentary footage. We saw the Scimitar firing all of half a dozen weapons throughout the battle, therefore that's what its armament is, regardless of what Worf reported.
....and the Enterprise D can fire a phaser from it's torpedo tube, the Defiant's main deflector can fire a phaser, ships registry numbers can change mid battle, Klingon's had forehead ridges, then lost them, then got them again, and change the color of there blood.Tsukiyumi wrote: EDIT: from an in-universe perspective, the Doomsday Machine can alter its size by about 3000 %.
Fine, then they're functionaly identical to a minigun, just with a shit rate of fire.Except for the fact that a minigun only has one firing mechanismIf they're incapable of doing so then they're no more separate weapons than the barrels of of a minigun.
He has not ignored it, he has adressed your points repeatedly.That has been explained, you just ignore it.And they all either ignore parsimony, are contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons", or demonstrate an incredibly stupid design.
We never saw the results of the sensor scan for ourselves, so you can't use that for evidence, and I've given numerous possible reasons (which you yourself have admitted are all possible) as to why Worf may have been incorrect.The sensor scan and Worf's statements are solid evidence.No. However, if you want to argue that a more complex theory is the correct one then you must provide solid evidence, not ifs, buts and meybes.
There's one key difference between Seafort claiming the E-E has weapons that were not observed firing, and you claiming the Scimitar has weapons that were not observed firing.I could say prove it, but then I would sound like you.All the weapons that bore on the Scimitar were seen firing.
The battle = disproof of that statement.The statement = evidence.1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We never saw any others firing, ergo that is evidence that they don't exist.
I take it you haven't seen the film in quite a while. You can see the Scimitar's silouhete even when it's cloaked. As a matter of fact, that's one of my biggest criticisms about the ship as simply looking out a freaking window could have told the E-E crew where the ship was. The cloak was clearly designed with affecting sensors in mind, which would make sense given the vastness of space.2) At various points in the battle we saw, every surface of the Scimitar was pointing at the E-E or the Valdores at one point or other.
Funny you can tell this since the ship was clocked.
Those theories violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, and therefore best, sollution is that Worf, being the fallable mortal that he is, made a mistake in some way.3 Theories explain this quite well.Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is directly contradicted by the visual evidence.
Unless you want to claim that the Scimitar's 42 other guns were so small that they'd have had no effect on the E-E, that's a complete Red Herring.So the numbers may b wrong if the weapons were smaller, interesting!The emplacements certainly, the guns, not so much. Especially the secondary and AA batteries - you can tell there's something there, but at range it would be difficult to distinguish the number of barrels.
You've failed to adress his point. Federation sensors have been shown to be screwed with on many, many occasions. That the most advanced ship in the quadrant may have had an advanced form of sensor-screwing systems is quite reasonable.Yes add a planet or a moon at it all becomes simple!Since Riker (and later Roga Danar) was able to hide from a Tholian ship by cutting power and hanging over a magnetic pole. Since it was suggested that Uxbridge's fake Husnock ship could have been riding a Lagrange point behind a moon.
And that statement contradicts every single scene in which the Scimitar is in.Evidence the statement is!The Razor applies universally - if several explanations all fit the available evidence, the one with the fewest entities is the most preferable. No ifs, no buts.
It is contradicted by direct observation of every single scene the ship is in.I do. I don't accept sesnor reading that are contradicted by visual evidence.
Accept it is only contradicted in your explanation.
For Christ's sake. Occam is no longer spinning in his grave, he's reached escape velocity at this point.Until you start adding reasons why the sensors misread the number of weapons, what was it some type of dampening field? Or you explain how Worf''s said 52 and then in the next few seconds did not correct himself.The number of entities is this theory are multiplying exponentially. The Razor bins it.
Since I don't think you understand why, I'll explain to you here why clustering 52 guns into 6 hardpoints is a very bad idea.Same for the other groups of weapons.Correct. The other dozen or more would, however, be elsewhere, and would not be disabled. If they existed.
For the dozenth or so time in this one post, Worf's statement directly contradicts everything we see unless you add in several other factors.The statement and the sensor reading are.........well you get it.It fits the available evidence, and does not require additional entities. Therefore it is preferable to the others.
And you seem to have missed the reasons why this is a stupid explaination.You missed "giving the apperance of".It assumes multiple disruptors, despite the same visuals being consistent with a single weapon. The additional entities mean the Razor rejects it.
By that logic, submarines in WW2 should all have been fitted with anti-ship cannons. Sure, their primary role was to operate stealthily under the sea, but there are numerous instances where the submarine in question was forced to surface.Unless those conditions are changed by the enemy or outside conditions. The BOP that could fire while cloaked did not have any type of backup system and look what happened to itWhich would be contrary to one of the ship's primary roles - to be able to fight under cloak. There's no point in having dozens of extra weapons if they're useless under the conditions the ship was designed to operate under.
*sigh*No it does not contradict Shinzon's order. If a captain of a modern battle ship orders all guns fire on an other ship the crew will not start firing its anti-aircraft weapons also. The Remen tactical officer is not a simple automaton.Again, this requires multiplies entities, so the Razor rejects it. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's order to "fire all weapons".
Since I'm not at all sure you understand how Occam's Razor works, I'd advise you to read this page on it. It's a simple and easy to understand explaination on it.I guess you can figure out my answer to your razor dance
Fine, then they're functionaly identical to a minigun, just with a shit rate of fire.Except for the fact that a minigun only has one firing mechanismIf they're incapable of doing so then they're no more separate weapons than the barrels of of a minigun.
He has not ignored it, he has adressed your points repeatedly.That has been explained, you just ignore it.And they all either ignore parsimony, are contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons", or demonstrate an incredibly stupid design.
We never saw the results of the sensor scan for ourselves, so you can't use that for evidence, and I've given numerous possible reasons (which you yourself have admitted are all possible) as to why Worf may have been incorrect.The sensor scan and Worf's statements are solid evidence.No. However, if you want to argue that a more complex theory is the correct one then you must provide solid evidence, not ifs, buts and meybes.
There's one key difference between Seafort claiming the E-E has weapons that were not observed firing, and you claiming the Scimitar has weapons that were not observed firing.I could say prove it, but then I would sound like you.All the weapons that bore on the Scimitar were seen firing.
The battle = disproof of that statement.The statement = evidence.1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We never saw any others firing, ergo that is evidence that they don't exist.
I take it you haven't seen the film in quite a while. You can see the Scimitar's silouhete even when it's cloaked. As a matter of fact, that's one of my biggest criticisms about the ship as simply looking out a freaking window could have told the E-E crew where the ship was. The cloak was clearly designed with affecting sensors in mind, which would make sense given the vastness of space.2) At various points in the battle we saw, every surface of the Scimitar was pointing at the E-E or the Valdores at one point or other.
Funny you can tell this since the ship was clocked.
Those theories violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, and therefore best, sollution is that Worf, being the fallable mortal that he is, made a mistake in some way.3 Theories explain this quite well.Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is directly contradicted by the visual evidence.
Unless you want to claim that the Scimitar's 42 other guns were so small that they'd have had no effect on the E-E, that's a complete Red Herring.So the numbers may b wrong if the weapons were smaller, interesting!The emplacements certainly, the guns, not so much. Especially the secondary and AA batteries - you can tell there's something there, but at range it would be difficult to distinguish the number of barrels.
You've failed to adress his point. Federation sensors have been shown to be screwed with on many, many occasions. That the most advanced ship in the quadrant may have had an advanced form of sensor-screwing systems is quite reasonable.Yes add a planet or a moon at it all becomes simple!Since Riker (and later Roga Danar) was able to hide from a Tholian ship by cutting power and hanging over a magnetic pole. Since it was suggested that Uxbridge's fake Husnock ship could have been riding a Lagrange point behind a moon.
And that statement contradicts every single scene in which the Scimitar is in.Evidence the statement is!The Razor applies universally - if several explanations all fit the available evidence, the one with the fewest entities is the most preferable. No ifs, no buts.
It is contradicted by direct observation of every single scene the ship is in.I do. I don't accept sesnor reading that are contradicted by visual evidence.
Accept it is only contradicted in your explanation.
For Christ's sake. Occam is no longer spinning in his grave, he's reached escape velocity at this point.Until you start adding reasons why the sensors misread the number of weapons, what was it some type of dampening field? Or you explain how Worf''s said 52 and then in the next few seconds did not correct himself.The number of entities is this theory are multiplying exponentially. The Razor bins it.
Since I don't think you understand why, I'll explain to you here why clustering 52 guns into 6 hardpoints is a very bad idea.Same for the other groups of weapons.Correct. The other dozen or more would, however, be elsewhere, and would not be disabled. If they existed.
For the dozenth or so time in this one post, Worf's statement directly contradicts everything we see unless you add in several other factors.The statement and the sensor reading are.........well you get it.It fits the available evidence, and does not require additional entities. Therefore it is preferable to the others.
And you seem to have missed the reasons why this is a stupid explaination.You missed "giving the apperance of".It assumes multiple disruptors, despite the same visuals being consistent with a single weapon. The additional entities mean the Razor rejects it.
By that logic, submarines in WW2 should all have been fitted with anti-ship cannons. Sure, their primary role was to operate stealthily under the sea, but there are numerous instances where the submarine in question was forced to surface.Unless those conditions are changed by the enemy or outside conditions. The BOP that could fire while cloaked did not have any type of backup system and look what happened to itWhich would be contrary to one of the ship's primary roles - to be able to fight under cloak. There's no point in having dozens of extra weapons if they're useless under the conditions the ship was designed to operate under.
*sigh*No it does not contradict Shinzon's order. If a captain of a modern battle ship orders all guns fire on an other ship the crew will not start firing its anti-aircraft weapons also. The Remen tactical officer is not a simple automaton.Again, this requires multiplies entities, so the Razor rejects it. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's order to "fire all weapons".
Since I'm not at all sure you understand how Occam's Razor works, I'd advise you to read this page on it. It's a simple and easy to understand explaination on it.I guess you can figure out my answer to your razor dance
The problem is you don't get that you are just coming with a simple answer by throwing out evidence.Rochey wrote: Fine, then they're functionaly identical to a minigun, just with a s**t rate of fire.
And, for the Nth time, can you prove that the weapons were clustered together like you claim?
Can you prove they were not? So we are back to explaining the 52 disruptor statement.
Why did the sensors read 52 weapons if there were not?
He has not ignored it, he has adressed your points repeatedly.That has been explained, you just ignore it.And they all either ignore parsimony, are contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons", or demonstrate an incredibly stupid design.
Really?
We never saw the results of the sensor scan for ourselves, so you can't use that for evidence, and I've given numerous possible reasons (which you yourself have admitted are all possible) as to why Worf may have been incorrect.The sensor scan and Worf's statements are solid evidence.No. However, if you want to argue that a more complex theory is the correct one then you must provide solid evidence, not ifs, buts and meybes.
Which is exactly why this argument is different that one from the real world. If we were in the trek universe we could see what the sensor scan said.
There's one key difference between Seafort claiming the E-E has weapons that were not observed firing, and you claiming the Scimitar has weapons that were not observed firing.I could say prove it, but then I would sound like you.All the weapons that bore on the Scimitar were seen firing.
The E-E's armament can be seen. We see them, ergo they are there. The Scimitar's 46 other guns have not been observed at all.
....but then why were they not fired?
The battle = disproof of that statement.The statement = evidence.1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We never saw any others firing, ergo that is evidence that they don't exist.
Since numerous theories have been put forth to explain what we see it really does not.
I take it you haven't seen the film in quite a while. You can see the Scimitar's silouhete even when it's cloaked. As a matter of fact, that's one of my biggest criticisms about the ship as simply looking out a freaking window could have told the E-E crew where the ship was. The cloak was clearly designed with affecting sensors in mind, which would make sense given the vastness of space.2) At various points in the battle we saw, every surface of the Scimitar was pointing at the E-E or the Valdores at one point or other.
Funny you can tell this since the ship was clocked.
I have seen it, I have been watching the video's, you can see it when is fires a weapon.
Those theories violate Occam's Razor. The simplest, and therefore best, sollution is that Worf, being the fallable mortal that he is, made a mistake in some way.3 Theories explain this quite well.Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is directly contradicted by the visual evidence.
No, again they do not. A solution that fits all the evidence even if more complicated is preferred to on that is simpler and ignores some.
Unless you want to claim that the Scimitar's 42 other guns were so small that they'd have had no effect on the E-E, that's a complete Red Herring.So the numbers may b wrong if the weapons were smaller, interesting!The emplacements certainly, the guns, not so much. Especially the secondary and AA batteries - you can tell there's something there, but at range it would be difficult to distinguish the number of barrels.
....or they would have little effect, or that were not in the forward arc because small fast ship would probable avoid being head on with the Scimitar, or since there were no small ships to fight off those system were never powered up of conserve power.
You've failed to adress his point. Federation sensors have been shown to be screwed with on many, many occasions. That the most advanced ship in the quadrant may have had an advanced form of sensor-screwing systems is quite reasonable.Yes add a planet or a moon at it all becomes simple!Since Riker (and later Roga Danar) was able to hide from a Tholian ship by cutting power and hanging over a magnetic pole. Since it was suggested that Uxbridge's fake Husnock ship could have been riding a Lagrange point behind a moon.
...and this is part of the "simpler explanation".
And that statement contradicts every single scene in which the Scimitar is in.Evidence the statement is!The Razor applies universally - if several explanations all fit the available evidence, the one with the fewest entities is the most preferable. No ifs, no buts.
Ergo it cannot be used as sole evidence since taking it as truth would mean disregarding countless observed events.
Are we getting that fact through to you yet?
No, see you guys fail to understand that the ship having 52 disruptors do not go against what is seen. You have been given 3 possibilities of how.
It is contradicted by direct observation of every single scene the ship is in.I do. I don't accept sesnor reading that are contradicted by visual evidence.
Accept it is only contradicted in your explanation.
The only way to rationalise that statement so that it does not contradict direct observation is to assume:
A) The builders of the Scimitar had no idea what they were doing.has been addressed and shown incorrect
B) The builders didn't know s**t about constructing warships.see above
C) Each individual cannon takes several dozen seconds to recharge after firing.is possible
D) All weapon cannot be fired at once.also very possible
Or, we could simply take our sollution and assume that, for whatever reason, Worf was mistaken.
Go ahead, just try and claim that your's is the simplest sollution.
No not the simplest, but simple is not always correct.
For Christ's sake. Occam is no longer spinning in his grave, he's reached escape velocity at this point.Until you start adding reasons why the sensors misread the number of weapons, what was it some type of dampening field? Or you explain how Worf''s said 52 and then in the next few seconds did not correct himself.The number of entities is this theory are multiplying exponentially. The Razor bins it.
The way you are trying to use Occam's Razor "God did it" would be the answer to everything.
Since I don't think you understand why, I'll explain to you here why clustering 52 guns into 6 hardpoints is a very bad idea.Same for the other groups of weapons.Correct. The other dozen or more would, however, be elsewhere, and would not be disabled. If they existed.
If you have it so that eight or nine guns are placed within a few metres of each other, it takes just one torp or phaser blast to knock out that entire bank of guns. With one shot, your armament is knocked down from 52 to 44. That's a massive drop in offensive power. And even worse, it means your entire battleship could be de-clawed with just half a dozen torpedoes.
Now, if your guns are spread out all over the ship's hull, then you have lots of advantages. For one, it reduces the number of blindspots that an enemy can slip into. It allows you to counter pretty much any angle of attack, and engage with multiple guns any ship that aproaches from any direction. And finaly, it means that your ship would take 52 hits to de-claw.
Ergo, if we assume that the builders of the Scimitar clustered those 52 guns into six hardpoints, we must also assume they were on the verge of braindeath.
If the ship had only 6 weapons and on of them is destroyed it would reduce the overall firepower by the same %. So there is no disadvantage in grouping the weapons. There is the advantage of not having to task any individual weapon to depletion. Perhaps this is why the Enterprise had 4% of its phaser capacity at the end and the Scimitar was still strong.
For the dozenth or so time in this one post, Worf's statement directly contradicts everything we see unless you add in several other factors.The statement and the sensor reading are.........well you get it.It fits the available evidence, and does not require additional entities. Therefore it is preferable to the others.
Unless you go with one of the other three theories.
And you seem to have missed the reasons why this is a stupid explaination.You missed "giving the apperance of".It assumes multiple disruptors, despite the same visuals being consistent with a single weapon. The additional entities mean the Razor rejects it.
No, you just seem to think it is stupid, maybe becasue is it not your idea.
By that logic, submarines in WW2 should all have been fitted with anti-ship cannons. Sure, their primary role was to operate stealthily under the sea, but there are numerous instances where the submarine in question was forced to surface.Unless those conditions are changed by the enemy or outside conditions. The BOP that could fire while cloaked did not have any type of backup system and look what happened to itWhich would be contrary to one of the ship's primary roles - to be able to fight under cloak. There's no point in having dozens of extra weapons if they're useless under the conditions the ship was designed to operate under.
I've stated it before, and I'll now state it again:
If the ship's primary advantage is compromised, it should withdraw from the battlefield and return to a facility where it can make repairs.
Deck Gun?
What if it can't withdraw, I guess it would have to surrender. "Boy we could have used some extra firepower to fight our way out......aren't these Federation brigs roomy?
*sigh*No it does not contradict Shinzon's order. If a captain of a modern battle ship orders all guns fire on an other ship the crew will not start firing its anti-aircraft weapons also. The Remen tactical officer is not a simple automaton.Again, this requires multiplies entities, so the Razor rejects it. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's order to "fire all weapons".
An anti-aircraft gun is not effective against a battleship.
A disruptor, even if it was smaller than the main guns, would have been effective against the Enterprise.
If out of range no, but that goes back to the Remen tactical office not being a robot.
So unless you want to claim that the guns in question were so small that they wouldn't have had any effect on the ship at all, we're left with either A) the Reman officer disobeying orders and Shinzon not caring, or B) the Scimitar not having 52 disruptors.
....or not powered up, or not in the arc, or........
Since I'm not at all sure you understand how Occam's Razor works, I'd advise you to read this page on it. It's a simple and easy to understand explaination on it.I guess you can figure out my answer to your razor dance
I'd also advise you to read this page, which focuses on the methods of analysing fictional events. Pay particular attention to the "Visuals vs Dialogue" bit.
m52nickerson wrote:Tsukiyumi wrote: EDIT: from an in-universe perspective, the Doomsday Machine can alter its size by about 3000 %.
....and the Enterprise D can fire a phaser from it's torpedo tube, the Defiant's main deflector can fire a phaser, ships registry numbers can change mid battle, Klingon's had forehead ridges, then lost them, then got them again, and change the color of there blood.
Yes FX are not to be argued with!
Your's is simpler, do you think those weapons were group and that is why we see only fire from only a few points or do you another idea?Tsukiyumi wrote:It's not as simple as my argument, because it assumes the existence of something not shown or referenced.
You are making the postitive claim (i.e. that the Scimitar had 52 guns). The burden of proof is on you.m52nickerson wrote:Can you prove they were not?
Would we? Do all WW2 documentaries give detailed shots of every radar scan ever conducted? No they don't. We have what we see, and must draw our conclusions from that.Which is exactly why this argument is different that one from the real world. If we were in the trek universe we could see what the sensor scan said.
Because they don't fucking exist you idiot.....but then why were they not fired?
For what feels like the thousandth fucking time these theories do not satisfy Occam's Razor. You're pulling it out of your arse in a desperate effort to "prove" that Worf was right when the far simpler and more rational solution is that he was wrong.Since numerous theories have been put forth to explain what we see it really does not.
And when it drops out of warp, and when weapons fire hits it, and when Shinzon dropped the cloak to lure in the Romulans, and when it was disabled towards the end, and when the ship pulled any tight turns...I have seen it, I have been watching the video's, you can see it when is fires a weapon.
No one's ignoring evidence except you, you brainless fuckwit. Worf. Is. Not. Infallible. Get that through your thick skull.No, again they do not. A solution that fits all the evidence even if more complicated is preferred to on that is simpler and ignores some.
If that's your belief then fucking prove it. I grow tired of you pulling ever more extravagant "theories" out of your arse and then pretending that it's our job to disprove them.....or they would have little effect, or that were not in the forward arc because small fast ship would probable avoid being head on with the Scimitar, or since there were no small ships to fight off those system were never powered up of conserve power.
Simple solution: Worf was wrong, for reason or reasons unknown....and this is part of the "simpler explanation".
Yes it fucking does you blind moron. Go and watch the film, count the number of points from which disruptor fire emerges, and then retract that statement.No, see you guys fail to understand that the ship having 52 disruptors do not go against what is seen.
This has been dealt with repeatedly.No not the simplest, but simple is not always correct.
The Razor disproves God. He's an additional entity, which the Razor specifically rejects.The way you are trying to use Occam's Razor "God did it" would be the answer to everything.
Agreed, but if the Scimitar actually has 52 guns, as you claim, grouping them together would be utter madness.If the ship had only 6 weapons and on of them is destroyed it would reduce the overall firepower by the same %. So there is no disadvantage in grouping the weapons. There is the advantage of not having to task any individual weapon to depletion. Perhaps this is why the Enterprise had 4% of its phaser capacity at the end and the Scimitar was still strong.
You mean the ones that we've ripped apart time and time again?Unless you go with one of the other three theories.
Or because we actually know what we're talking about.No, you just seem to think it is stupid, maybe becasue is it not your idea.
Yes, they had deck guns. Some even had cruiser-weight deck guns. Guess what - the ones with the big deck guns tended to be the least effective.Deck Gun?
If a submarine was attacked it either surrendered and scuttled, or went deep and silent to try and wait out its attackers. Gun duels were inevitably one-sided massacres of submarines, even against Q-ships.What if it can't withdraw, I guess it would have to surrender. "Boy we could have used some extra firepower to fight our way out......aren't these Federation brigs roomy?
Yes they would. They may not be very effective, but they'd do some good against exposed personnel out the outer hull. The Bismarck's AA guns were used in this role during her final battle. Conversely, the main armament of battleships was often used against aircraft, usually to create a splash barrage, but the Yamatos also used their main armament as direct fire AA guns.No it does not contradict Shinzon's order. If a captain of a modern battle ship orders all guns fire on an other ship the crew will not start firing its anti-aircraft weapons also.
What you don't realise is that nothing's being thrown out. Two pieces of evidence contradict each other. One is direct visual evidence, the other is a statement by an individual. The latter is falible while the former is not. Therefore we conclude that the individual making the statement was wrong for some reason.The problem is you don't get that you are just coming with a simple answer by throwing out evidence.
You do realise, I hope, that the bloke who runs that other site is a professional engineer?....and good for that other site, I don't agree with them either.
So? There are examples where visuals contradict other visuals. This is not one of them.*snip examples* Yes FX are not to be argued with!
