---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 01:13:57 GMT Subject: Just curious Message-ID: -------- A simple question: Saxton's pages appear to use several different sizes for the ISD towers and the thingies on them. For example: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#model The above page gives an ISD tower width of 265-270 meters, 284 max. But now, look here: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere on the site). This makes no sense. Take a look at this picture: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface2a.jpg That's supposed to be the Avenger (ISD-II) bridge tower. If you compare the globes to the width of the entire face, you can squeeze about 8.4 to 8.5 globes across the front. The tower is 1265 pixels wide, and the globe is 150. 8.4 x 41 = 344.4 8.4 x 43 = 361.2 8.5 x 41 = 348.5 8.5 x 43 = 365.5 From the 41 or 43 meter globe figure, we get tower widths of 344-366 meters. That's up to 100 meters longer than the figure Saxton gives. On the other hand, if we scale the globes off of the tower face figure from Saxton, we get globes of 31-32 meters in size, with a maximum of 33.6 meters. What's going on? Am I missing something, or is this a critical discrepancy? I know globes have been used to scale everything from the Falcon to asteroids, so I would think this is important. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DarkStar" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:16:20 GMT Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:pbn%8.245755$iB1.13052447@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > A simple question: > > Saxton's pages appear to use several different sizes for the ISD towers and > the thingies on them. For example: > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#model > > The above page gives an ISD tower width of 265-270 meters, 284 max. > > But now, look here: > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes > > He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere on > the site). > > This makes no sense. Take a look at this picture: > > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface2a.jpg > > That's supposed to be the Avenger (ISD-II) bridge tower. If you compare > the globes to the width of the entire face, you can squeeze about 8.4 to 8.5 > globes across the front. The tower is 1265 pixels wide, and the globe is > 150. > > 8.4 x 41 = 344.4 > 8.4 x 43 = 361.2 > 8.5 x 41 = 348.5 > 8.5 x 43 = 365.5 > > From the 41 or 43 meter globe figure, we get tower widths of 344-366 meters. > That's up to 100 meters longer than the figure Saxton gives. > > On the other hand, if we scale the globes off of the tower face figure from > Saxton, we get globes of 31-32 meters in size, with a maximum of 33.6 > meters. > > What's going on? Am I missing something, or is this a critical > discrepancy? I know globes have been used to scale everything from the > Falcon to asteroids, so I would think this is important. Okay, Somehow, Saxton derived a completely improper figure for the bridge globes. They are, in fact, in the 30 meter range. If you take http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdflank1.jpg and do the measurements, you'll find that the bridge domes simply cannot be 41 meters. That pic is of an ISD-II (Avenger), judging by the lack of quad-lasers in the notch and the overall level of detail. The pic of an ISD-I suggests a high-30's figure for the globe diameter, close to Saxton's 41 meter figure. Apparently Saxton just didn't differentiate between classes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Phil Skayhan" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:16:49 GMT Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "DarkStar" wrote in message news:UCr%8.249463$iX5.12893868@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com... > Okay, > > Somehow, Saxton derived a completely improper figure for the bridge globes. > They are, in fact, in the 30 meter range. If you take > http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdflank1.jpg and do the > measurements, you'll find that the bridge domes simply cannot be 41 meters. > That pic is of an ISD-II (Avenger), judging by the lack of quad-lasers in > the notch and the overall level of detail. The pic of an ISD-I suggests a > high-30's figure for the globe diameter, close to Saxton's 41 meter figure. > Apparently Saxton just didn't differentiate between classes. Also if you look at the globe where my supposed "torp" explodes (unknown torps page www.skayhan.net) you'll see it is also close to and perhaps > 40m. Compare the Falcon as it comes around the bridge tower. I don't have the pic for that up so you'll have to bear with me. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- > He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere on > the site). They aren't sensor globes... Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Iceberg Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:02:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" wrote: >> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere >on >> the site). > >They aren't sensor globes... The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. Either way, you have to beat down the shields before you can attack them. -- Ice "How should I know? I'M A FUCKING CATFISH!" - Standard Mon Cal response to any crisis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:49:18 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Iceberg" wrote in message news:qbntju4v2636sn538ib77pm8f6ocbftgud@4ax.com... > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > wrote: > > >> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere > >on > >> the site). > > > >They aren't sensor globes... > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. Seems pretty obvious to me, from watching ROTJ. > > Either way, you have to beat down the shields before you can attack > them. I see no evidence of that. Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:03:34 +0800 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Robert Williams" wrote in message news:ahn3sc$o3u$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Iceberg" wrote in message > news:qbntju4v2636sn538ib77pm8f6ocbftgud@4ax.com... > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > > wrote: > > > > >> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 > elsewhere > > >on > > >> the site). > > > > > >They aren't sensor globes... > > > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. > > Seems pretty obvious to me, from watching ROTJ. You are right, but you computed it using heuristics only. As did too many official writers... Heuristics, by the way, apparently involve human shortcut procedures when perceiving, and the source of many logical fallacies, including the appeal to authority, which is based on the heuristic "sequence" that assumes that an expert saying it makes it right (for convenience). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:39:18 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ahnfk2$ug3va$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Robert Williams" wrote in message > news:ahn3sc$o3u$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "Iceberg" wrote in message > > news:qbntju4v2636sn538ib77pm8f6ocbftgud@4ax.com... > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 > > elsewhere > > > >on > > > >> the site). > > > > > > > >They aren't sensor globes... > > > > > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. > > > > Seems pretty obvious to me, from watching ROTJ. > > You are right, but you computed it using heuristics only. I deduced it using common sense... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 06:58:02 +0800 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Robert Williams" wrote in message news:ahp9jl$kuc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > news:ahnfk2$ug3va$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > You are right, but you computed it using heuristics only. > > I deduced it using common sense... You deduced it using intuition. Or: You leapt to a conclusion too quickly. Are both also valid equivalents. Intuition and common sense are based on heuristics rather than full logical solutions, and leads to fallacies where you leap to conclusions too quickly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:50:45 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message news:ahq0ha$v45ad$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > "Robert Williams" wrote in message > news:ahp9jl$kuc$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk... > > > > "Kazuaki Shimazaki" wrote in message > > news:ahnfk2$ug3va$1@ID-144261.news.dfncis.de... > > > > You are right, but you computed it using heuristics only. > > > > I deduced it using common sense... > > You deduced it using intuition. > > Or: > > You leapt to a conclusion too quickly. > > Are both also valid equivalents. Intuition and common sense are based on > heuristics rather than full logical solutions, and leads to fallacies > where you leap to conclusions too quickly. > > Or not. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 24 Jul 2002 23:39:46 GMT Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: <20020725003952115+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Iceberg wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > wrote: > >>> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 >>> elsewhere >>on >>> the site). >> >>They aren't sensor globes... > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. > > Either way, you have to beat down the shields before you can attack > them. Doesn't Rogue Squadron do it at one point? Or were they already under the shields.... Hmm, need to find the books. -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:36:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message news:20020725003952115+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > Iceberg wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > > wrote: > > > >>> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 > >>> elsewhere > >>on > >>> the site). > >> > >>They aren't sensor globes... > > > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. > > > > Either way, you have to beat down the shields before you can attack > > them. > > Doesn't Rogue Squadron do it at one point? Or were they already under > the shields.... Hmm, need to find the books. It looks to me like SW fighters fly in and out of the sheilds at will (apart from the sheilds of the second deathstar), and target the sheild genrators, so heavier craft can bring their weapons to bear with greater effect. It seems the obvious explanation. I could see why you'd attack them if they were sensor globes containing targetting equipment. But the really don't look like they have anything to do with sensor equipment. Rob ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Kazuaki Shimazaki" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:03:05 +0800 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- "Robert Williams" wrote in message news:ahp9et$2b3$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk... > > "Jonathan Boyd" wrote in message > news:20020725003952115+0100@news.cis.dfn.de... > > Iceberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:53:38 +0100, "Robert Williams" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 > > >>> elsewhere > > >>on > > >>> the site). > > >> > > >>They aren't sensor globes... > > > > > > The jury's out on whether they're sensors or shield generators. > > > > > > Either way, you have to beat down the shields before you can attack > > > them. > > > > Doesn't Rogue Squadron do it at one point? Or were they already under > > the shields.... Hmm, need to find the books. In Wraith Squadron, it happened, but the shields were down and Implacable was _about_ to raise when when Rogue Squadron took out the supposed shield domes. In Iron Fist, someone (IIRC it was Piggy) smuggled himself next to Razor's Kiss and knocked out those two domes that shouldn't even have LOS towards the ventral side. For all the advantages of Allston, Stackpole does have an advantage. At least in the books, he explicitly describes the domes as sensors, like in Bacta War. That _almost_ forgives him for having some of the most vulnerable (versus starfighter) Star Destroyers in the whole continuity :-). > It looks to me like SW fighters fly in and out of the sheilds at will (apart > from the sheilds of the second deathstar), and target the sheild genrators, > so heavier craft can bring their weapons to bear with greater effect. It > seems the obvious explanation. > > I could see why you'd attack them if they were sensor globes containing > targetting equipment. But the really don't look like they have anything to > do with sensor equipment. That's because of a heuristically derived brain bug. OH, yes, it was "Common Sense." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jonathan Boyd Date: 25 Jul 2002 23:23:33 GMT Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: <20020726002341366+0100@news.cis.dfn.de> -------- Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: > or all the advantages of Allston, Stackpole does have an advantage. At > least in the books, he explicitly describes the domes as sensors, like > in Bacta War. That almost forgives him for having some of the most > vulnerable (versus starfighter) Star Destroyers in the whole > continuity >:-). When does he say they're sensor domes? -- Jonathan Boyd AIM/MSN: EmperorBoyd | Web: http://www.jboyd.co.uk/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Robert Williams" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 19:51:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Just curious Message-ID: -------- > > In Wraith Squadron, it happened, but the shields were down and > Implacable was _about_ to raise when when Rogue Squadron took out the > supposed shield domes. EU doesn't factor into this. Rob