Luke
Commander
[ss:Cool Blue]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by Luke on Jan 19, 2011 12:12:30 GMT -6
You mean, would an animal be able to see the holograms? I don't know. I guess a dog would just stand around thinking, "where's the smell?"
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Jan 21, 2011 8:45:47 GMT -6
I was thinking more of in terms of how animals are represented on a holodeck. Like the time Picard rode a horse, and Deanna Troi begged off, saying that she prefered a means of transportation that didn't have a mind of its own. It was a holographic horse! How could it have a mind?
|
|
Luke
Commander
[ss:Cool Blue]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by Luke on Jan 26, 2011 12:22:30 GMT -6
Well it couldn't. Anymore that the holodeck bartender had one. Remember when Lwaxana cuoldn't read his mind. but I guess if the computer can get human holograms to behave in a believable way, doing animals would be easier, woulnd't it?
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 3, 2011 13:31:14 GMT -6
To some extent but actually now you point it out Deanna was being a bit irrational there. A holographic horse presumably wouldn't be as unpredictable or difficult to handle as a real horse can be. Especially as you could specify the perfect beginner's mount - docile, not easily spooked, very amenable and friendly...
Interestingly, what do you think would happen if you actually fell off a horse in the holodeck? How far do the safeties actually go in protecting you? Presumably the safeties also can't prevent things like sprained ankles or pulled muscles that aren't as a *direct* result of the programme so to speak?
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 4, 2011 8:45:28 GMT -6
That's an interesting question. There is a certain amount of risk inherent in almost anything. But if, for example, you had programmed the thing for a lunar environment and you were hopping around in a spacesuit, would the holodeck really go to the trouble of creating a full vacuum, or would it just simulate a lunar environment?
Plus I can imagine that there might be different levels of safety, for example a Child Level, where the floor would automatically cushion you if you fell off your horse!
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 4, 2011 14:33:46 GMT -6
Hmm, interesting thought...making it very safe for children to go exploring and creating a fantastical world - like in those children's stories of Naomi's on Voyager. Have a voice lock that only certain programmes or items can be created or used by children (though whether children on the Enterprise would be able to go to the Holodecks on their own as Naomi does is debatable).
I can imagine where things are kill-you-dangerous I can imagine it might create a livable facisimle - for instance an "underwater" environment in which you won't need a breathing apparatus? "Space" but without the vacuum.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 7, 2011 8:32:55 GMT -6
I vaguely remember a VOY episode where Torres was testing a shuttlecraft design or something. The idea was to see if it could survive a thick gas giant's atmosphere, if I remember right, and she was trying it out on the holodeck. Everyone else was worried that she might actually get killed if it didn't work, and I was shaking my head, wondering how the holodeck could literally pressurize itself to several thousand atmospheres! I mean why would it ever need to?
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 7, 2011 17:31:28 GMT -6
That's strange because I remember the (non-existant*ahem*) episode "Threshold" where Tom was testing the Warp 10 thingy in the holodeck and got repeatedly blown up and nobody worried about it or I seem to remember Harry testing that flying streamy thing back to the Alpha Quadrant and it kept going wrong there too.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 10, 2011 8:20:24 GMT -6
Ah the infamous "nonexistent" episode! I have heard of it, but never seen it! But while we're on the subject, wasn't there one where the Voyager was captured and the entire crew put into the holodecks (!) in a World War II simulation?
|
|
Arkroyal
Lt. Commander
I'm a historian, not an engineer![ss:Federation]
Posts: 440
|
Post by Arkroyal on Feb 12, 2011 17:23:46 GMT -6
Yep, by the Hirogen. Can't remember what it was called but I think the safeties were off because the Doctor was having to patch everyone back together and revive them again and again.
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 14, 2011 8:36:39 GMT -6
The strangest thing that struck me was how they used holodeck explosives to blow a hole in the wall of the holodeck so they could escape, or something like that! That's just... it doesn't make sense to me how that could happen.
|
|
Spock
Admiral
Ambassador
Are you wearing space pants?
Posts: 1,527
|
Post by Spock on Feb 16, 2011 18:49:02 GMT -6
well the safeties were off and they installed holodeck sensors throughout some of the adjacent decks, so it made the ship vulnerable instead of being on contained in the holodeck as it should of been.
|
|
Luke
Commander
[ss:Cool Blue]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by Luke on Feb 23, 2011 9:25:24 GMT -6
A lot of time just having "the safeties off" doenst make much sense to me. The normal gorund state for the holdeck would be to Simulate stuff, right? Say you're playing Dixon Hill and there are heavies after you with guns. The holodeck goons would be carrying guns with blanks right? Or guns that shot somekind of paintball thing or something. The point is they wouldn't be carying real guns because you might accidentally get hurt with something like that. Turning "the safeties off" would mean the compute would have to GO BACK and change the guns to real ones! Does that make any sense?
|
|
Atoz 77
Vice Admiral
[M:0]
[ss:Insurrection]
Posts: 4,065
|
Post by Atoz 77 on Feb 28, 2011 8:37:03 GMT -6
That depends on how deep the simulation really is, but I see the point you're making. I agree it seems a little odd for something that's supposed to be for recreation being able to "accidentally" turn dangerous in this way.
|
|
Luke
Commander
[ss:Cool Blue]
Posts: 1,087
|
Post by Luke on Mar 2, 2011 11:49:33 GMT -6
Exactly if the main reason for it is recreation the basic programming of the thing would be to asure safety. So taking the "safties off" would be pretty muchmeaningless. On the other hand the only reason I can think of to take off the safeties would be if it was itnended as a combat simulator. Then youd want some real danger wouldnt you?
|
|