Killiing Game Pt II
Ali Andrews
I saw Killing Game Pt II for the first time last night and can't work out
why when the holo emitters were overloaded the holo characters and the
weapons disappeared - but the scenery (e.g. streets, buildings, trees)
remained? Surely we should have just seen the grid?
Was this an error or is there some technical reason?
Allie
x
Angela R. Yowell
Program" the grid shows. Sounds like a goof on the writers/producers part.
Thanks for pointing that out, although, I had to watch the first part of the
episode when it was new, about 3 mo. ago, and the second part only about a
mo. ago, UPN pulled it's program carrier in my area, so I have to watch it
at 11 p.m. on Sunday night, it really stinks, and I don't get to see any
other UPN programs either.
Angela
Ali Andrews wrote in message <6rtt8v$q6r$2...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>...
Aaron J. Dinkin
<a...@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Just a little nit-pick but it really annoyed me............
>
> I saw Killing Game Pt II for the first time last night and can't work out
> why when the holo emitters were overloaded the holo characters and the
> weapons disappeared - but the scenery (e.g. streets, buildings, trees)
> remained? Surely we should have just seen the grid?
>
> Was this an error or is there some technical reason?
It was probably an error, but it can be explained away easily enough.
The holoemitters distinguish between passive holograms and active
holograms. Active holograms are those that move around or do things -
characters, tools, and so forth. Passive holograms constitute the scenery
of the holodeck - the static objects. You could argue that the holoemitters
require a continuous output of power to create and maintain active
holograms, and when power is cut these disappear, but passive holograms are
created by a process more similar to replication, so a single output of
power is necessary initially to create the background scenery, and then no
more power is expended unless the background needs to be changed (for
instance, "scrolling" as you walk) or the passive hologram must be
destroyed when the program is ended. Thus, when power is cut, the actives
disappear but the passives remain because it takes an expenditure of power
to get rid of them. We see this distinction in "normal" holodeck
circumstances as well: when someone says "End program," first all the
active holograms disappear and then all the passives. By my theory, this
would be because first power to the actives is turned off, and then the
computer specifically removes the passives.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Angela R. Yowell
the doctor disappear too, he's a hologram?
Angela
Aaron J. Dinkin wrote in message ...
Ali Andrews
<sabr...@gte.net> wrote:
>Okay, I'm stupified! If they cut power to the active holograms, wouldn't
>the doctor disappear too, he's a hologram?
The Doctor has a mobile emitter which I assume has its own power
supply. (at least it did in Red Dwarf - hehehe)
Allie
x
Ali Andrews
>Aaron J. Dinkin wrote in message ...
>It was probably an error, but it can be explained away easily enough.
>The holoemitters distinguish between passive holograms and active
>holograms. Active holograms are those that move around or do things -
>characters, tools, and so forth. Passive holograms constitute the scenery
>of the holodeck - the static objects. You could argue that the
holoemitters
>require a continuous output of power to create and maintain active
>holograms, and when power is cut these disappear, but passive holograms
are
>created by a process more similar to replication, so a single output of
>power is necessary initially to create the background scenery, and then no
>more power is expended unless the background needs to be changed (for
>instance, "scrolling" as you walk) or the passive hologram must be
>destroyed when the program is ended. Thus, when power is cut, the actives
>disappear but the passives remain because it takes an expenditure of power
>to get rid of them. We see this distinction in "normal" holodeck
>circumstances as well: when someone says "End program," first all the
>active holograms disappear and then all the passives. By my theory, this
>would be because first power to the actives is turned off, and then the
>computer specifically removes the passives.
Thanks Aaron - it makes sense! :-)
Allie
x
'Droid
>
> The message <6rtt8v$q6r$2...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>
> from "Ali Andrews" <a...@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > Just a little nit-pick but it really annoyed me............
>
> > I saw Killing Game Pt II for the first time last night and can't work out
> > why when the holo emitters were overloaded the holo characters and the
> > weapons disappeared - but the scenery (e.g. streets, buildings, trees)
> > remained? Surely we should have just seen the grid?
>
> > Was this an error or is there some technical reason?
>
> > x
>
> Do you know, I thought *exactly* the same thing when the Nazis,
> Klingons, etc disappeared and the street didn't...!!
Me too. We probably would have seen a mutilated corridor instead of a
grid. The only way this could have happened is if the scenery was real
whilst all the props were holographic.
'Droid
Therese Gray
Merrick Baldelli
<a...@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I saw Killing Game Pt II for the first time last night and can't work out
>why when the holo emitters were overloaded the holo characters and the
>weapons disappeared - but the scenery (e.g. streets, buildings, trees)
>remained? Surely we should have just seen the grid?
>
>Was this an error or is there some technical reason?
It was clearly an oversight on the writers and the production
people's parts. What we should have seen was simply the holomatrix
grid. But it's obvious that people in post production showed the
holes between an existing holodeck simulation and the actual ship, and
everyone was simply saying it looks "cool" and left it at that.
Which seems to be the mindset when it comes to the technical
aspects of the show.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 ` mbal...@mindspring.com
(\\\\ \_/ / http://www.mindspring.com/~mbaldelli
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/
/ /
Steve Christianson
>
> The message <6rtt8v$q6r$2...@plutonium.compulink.co.uk>
> from "Ali Andrews" <a...@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
> > Just a little nit-pick but it really annoyed me............
>
> > why when the holo emitters were overloaded the holo characters and the
> > weapons disappeared - but the scenery (e.g. streets, buildings, trees)
> > remained? Surely we should have just seen the grid?
>
> > Was this an error or is there some technical reason?
>
> > x
>
> Do you know, I thought *exactly* the same thing when the Nazis,
> Klingons, etc disappeared and the street didn't...!!
Just a thought, but couldn't there be different kinds of holoemitters,
like a more basic variety for stationary objects such as streets and
buildings and more complicated varieties for moving-interactive
characters? Like a computer: your "Windows 98" characters might crash
but the more basic "DOS" background objects don't.
Ali Andrews
Steve Christianson wrote in message <35E4B2...@worldnet.att.net>...
>Just a thought, but couldn't there be different kinds of holoemitters,
>like a more basic variety for stationary objects such as streets and
>buildings and more complicated varieties for moving-interactive
>characters? Like a computer: your "Windows 98" characters might crash
>but the more basic "DOS" background objects don't.
Thanks Steve,
That seems to make sense. :-)
Just one thing with your analogy: Windows 98 crashing - surely that never
happens! <g> It's ever so stable because Microsoft waited until it was
perfect before releasing it (hmmm methinks I am delusional).
Allie
x
Douglas Lee
Ali Andrews wrote:
> Just one thing with your analogy: Windows 98 crashing - surely that never
> happens! <g> It's ever so stable because Microsoft waited until it was
> perfect before releasing it (hmmm methinks I am delusional).
It's not like anyone remembers a certain cream pie hitting a certain geek's
face.
Not that THAT has anything to do with this.
Douglas
Merrick Baldelli
<a...@jupiter23.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Just one thing with your analogy: Windows 98 crashing - surely that never
>happens! <g> It's ever so stable because Microsoft waited until it was
>perfect before releasing it (hmmm methinks I am delusional).
Share!!!