www.ditl.org

GrahamKennedy wrote:There's also a matter of context. Trek did this :




The Constitution class was an absolute revolution in science fiction. Compared to the kinds of things that had gone before it was mindblowing original and vastly superior. And even now, over 40 years later, virtually every single design you see in Trek is some kind of variation on or refinement of the Connie.

I see.

I think there was someone earlier who mentioned that they love the E-nill in terms of its design rather than aesthetics.

You make good points. Its a great design, but not aesthetically pleasing by today's standards.

And personally, I don't think there has ever been another sci fi spaceship design that feels as genuine and real as the Star Trek ones do.

Indeed, I'm not familiar with any of those old sci fi, but I'm guessing stuff was just made up to suit the story, and there was no rhyme or reason to the structure.

The major components of the vessel are very clearly visible and have a distinct function; we clearly see the Warp nacelles, and know what they do (Trekkies at least :p), we know the purpose of the deflector dish, and can see the distinction and purpose of the primary/secondary hull configuration.

The Connie isn't that pleasant from an aesthetic point of view, but that's how it should be. Form follows function. The Connie was designed to be practical.

Welcome to the circular forum!

Rochey wrote:The Connie isn't that pleasant from an aesthetic point of view, but that's how it should be. Form follows function. The Connie was designed to be practical.

I, two pages ago, wrote:I personally don't believe that there are many people who believe that the original E-nil is more graceful, sleeker, etc., than, for example, [a more modern design.] However, a lot of people (myself included) believe that the design makes more sense for the intended use.

Uh, what he said.....

Rochey wrote:The Connie isn't that pleasant from an aesthetic point of view, but that's how it should be. Form follows function. The Connie was designed to be practical.

While I understand your point, I disagree with the suggestion that functionality and aesthetics are mutually exclusive. Look at the refit Connie for example - it's clearly a functional ship, but it's also one of the most beautiful in sci-fi. Or, if you want a RL example, take HMS Tiger, or the Mighty Hood - powerful warships, but also undeniably graceful.

Fair point.

Beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, and functional can have a beauty all its own. For instance I think this is absolutely gorgeous :



But not many would.

I think that's our point. If, for example, I was an infantryman in need of air cover/something to bust the tanks I'm staring at, then I'd think there was nothing more beautiful in the world than an A-10 flying over.

A-10s? Beautiful? Presence, certainly, but I can't see functionality alone having beauty.

This, on the other hand...

Yes, I think the A-10 is beautiful. And I'm not talking as in "I love to see it when I'm in trouble" - I think it is actually aesthetically beautiful in and of itself. As a kid I had a model of it on the ceiling in my house. It's purty

Really? That's beautiful, but you can't find beauty in an A-10?

BTW, here's real beauty in an airplane:

I always thought the A-10's looked awesome, personaly. They practicaly radiate an aura of "you're fucked".

Mikey wrote:Really? That's beautiful, but you can't find beauty in an A-10?

BTW, here's real beauty in an airplane:

I agree. Big fan of the P-38. I think there's also something to be said for this:

Not bad, but no other aircraft even comes close to this for beauty:

Rochey wrote:I always thought the A-10's looked awesome, personaly. They practicaly radiate an aura of "you're f***ed".

I seem to remember a unit motto from somewhere or other that I always thought should be hung on the A-10. "Don't bother running - you'll just die tired."