Has anybody else noticed that the ISD's design is more than a little retarded?
1. None of the main battery can fire into the ventral hemisphere. 2. Only 50% of the main battery can fire broadside into each of the 45-135 and 225-315 degree arcs? 3. Only 25% of the main battery can fire directly forward. 4. Only 12.5% can fire to either 30 degree arc to the side of directly forward. 5. No main battery weapons seem to be able to fire aft in the horisontal elivation. The very small number of secondary battery weapons is located midway down each side and at a notch in the trench limeting angles of fire dramaticly. 6. The films only show two of the box like turret mounts on the ventral surface of the ship. 7. As far as I know, The various novels do not have any weapons that can shoot into the subtended arc behind the ship. Certainly none are shown in any of the films, even when shuch would be eminately desirable. 8. The "bridge" structure and "superstructure" on top greatly increase the probability to hit ISD type ships. 9. The shield domes are only on top of the ship. What protects the bottom/ventral hemisphere? 10. The sensor/scanner systems lack resolution in angle, range, velocity and rate of change in all of those arias. There were six or seven ships with in two dozen miles of the MF when it ducked behind the Bridge Tower and they all missed it's maneuver and subsequent stop. Current Earth bound sensors have resolutions that would preclude any such maneuver from succedding! 11. Fire controle is so bad that the shots fired/hits ratio is on a parr with WW-I scores. WW-II factors are several times better than anything shown in any of the movies. 12. MV-Projectile speed is less than Cival war values. There is no cannon evidence of Light speed beams from any ship but the Death Star.
The above makes me wonder about the skill and knowledge of the writers and SFX crew.
Does anyone else out there think this is strange?
Posted by Mighty Blogger Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, because what you're doing is confusing between some odd technical crap and works well for the story.
"OH MY GOD IN HEAVEN THE STAR DESTROYER CAN'T HIT THE BROADSIDE OF A BARN! THE WRITERS SUCK!"
I mean, I can understand a discussion of this in the "What were the Imperial designers smoking?" but then you go and make the assertation that because the Empire has lousy gunners (in their Stormtroopers, TIE fighters, and big badass ships), that it's somehow the writer's fault.
I think you're a little strange.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The ISD suffers from the same "Starblazers Syndrome" as Battlestar Galactica, the TOS Enterprise and (obviously) the ships from STarblazers: the ships are not functional in a three dimensional environment and their weapons dont cover most fields of fire- particularly the ventral aspect.
Using naval vessels as the inspiration for spacecraft has it's drawbacks.
If it makes you feel any better, the Old Republic version of the ISD has ventral batteries (kinda like a cross between the Blockade Runner and an ISD).
From a SFX point of view, you're not supposed to notice stuff like that on the ISD as it blurrily cuts across the screen (nor are you supposed to see all the Tayiama model tank parts, the enbedded platic army man or the other greebles on the ISD studio models). Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You know, normally I'd be the last person to point this out. However, you have about 13 spelling errors in that post (including your bloody signature, which is shown in every post) and you're complaining about the skill of other writers.
Seriously.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Newbies: I've never trusted them and I never will. I've never forgiven them for the death of Qui-Gon Jinn.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if all those admirals had the best possible equipment? They might wipe out the Rebellion! Then you would have a bunch of heavily armedmilitary commanders with lots of time on their hands to consider politics. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You know, I was certain your links would all be about the Bush administration.
I was not far wrong, either.
But no Neo-Con has a cool name like "Sextus".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Cooler.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I suppose some may think "Colon" to be sexy. Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Let's give the newbie the benefit of the doubt here, technical discussions are native to Flare, after all.
I think the turrets in the side-rim of the SD can turn backwards and fire, maybe not 180 degrees backwards but like 100-120 degrees.
And the domes on the bridge structure are the sensors, not shields.
About the effectiveness of the Star Destroyers, we only have to look at the reputation they've earned in the movies to see their worth, for example Solo's bragging at Mos Eisley about having fled some of them before in his career, which we're to understand is a hard feat.
About the effectiveness of the SD's AA-umbrellas being on par with WW-I standard, I've seen more than a few WW-II movies where american and japanese ships were on par with the Ottoman empire for AA, mostly for plot-flow reasons. So everything's relative.
On the other hand, the Mon Calamari vessels are good examples of symmetrically built vessels that look about the same on the ventral and the dorsal side, so the designers weren't always "wrong".
One reason it may not matter how limited the fire arcs of the SDs are would be the old argument of the immensity of space, almost always giving them time to swing around to lay down fire when the target is 100000x kilometers away.
And about massing your firepower in only one direction, I refer to the french Richelieu class battleship, one of several designs to mass its main firepower one way. http://flareupload.pleh.net/uploads/205/RichelieuLineDrawing.gif Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Don't forget that the ISD was redisgned at pretty much the last second to be a lot larger, so if the placement of some of the turbolasers seems a bit odd then they've got an excuse.
quote:Originally posted by Nim': And the domes on the bridge structure are the sensors, not shields.
I'm amazed we've got this far without someone saying "Imperator", personally.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
THEY ARE SHIELDS IN X-WING
GENERAL TOP ACE IS MY CO-PILOT
(POSSIBLY THEY ARE SHIELD GENERATORS IN TIE FIGHTER TOO, MY MEMORY IS A LITTLE FUZZY)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And the domes on the bridge structure are the sensors, not shields.
I never quite understood that argument. Yeah, from what we see on screen it could go either way, but the ONLY reason to think they're sensors that I know of is so that the design isn't incredibly stupid. And to channel someone who cares of such things for a moment, since all Star Wars productions are canon of one level or another, and the games have them as shield generators, and nothing higher contradicts them that I'm aware of... they're shield generators.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"THEY ARE SHIELDS IN X-WING"
BUT IN XN-WIG AILANC THEIR NOT SO I MEAN WTF TEHY CANT B SHEALDS NAD SNESORZ @ TEH SAME TIEM RITE??
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
You know... I get a significant amount of joy from following these conversations.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
1.) I have never played X-Wing Alliance.
2.) If Lucasarts would go back (again) and release refurbished versions it would be a license to print money.
3.) How come there aren't any space sims anymore? Like, I played a little Freelancer and I was pointing and clicking. The hell is that?
4.) I'd also like a Space Quest VII please, Sierra, but no "action-adventure" hybrid.
(I feel I should make this confession here: I bought the expansion sets for both X-Wing and TIE Fighter and, besides one or two missions, never played them. I still feel guilty about it.)
5.) I'm not sure I see why having those bulbs be shield generators is such a terrible idea. I mean, if they're generating the shields then they ought to be inside them, surely, and thus as protected as anything else?
Finally; I wasn't really kidding too much in suggesting that an outfit like the Empire might have very valid reasons for stressing form over function.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I always thought they were shield generators: as soon as they lose one (in Jedi) a bridge officer announces "We've lost our forward shield!".
Seems pretty conclusive to me.
Remember, this ship is made by the same guys that allowedaccurate schematics of the Death Star to fall into Rebel hands not once, but twice in an attempt to lure the rebels into a trap.
"Sure, the rebels used the plans we let them steal to destroy the first Death Star, bit this time it'll be diffrent...really! After all, we've parked our giant command ship in a close orbit of the station. What could possibly go wrong?"
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Jason: Read the link Mucus posted, very informative.
Simon, you should definitely play "X-Wing: Alliance", it is immensely satisfying. Great plot and characters and the YT-2000 is frankly the best Star Wars ship ever.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've read through that site several times in the past and it always strikes me a fans desperately trying to explain away the more senseless aspects and errors of the SW movies.
Their explanation is that the shields failed at the exact same moment that the "sensor" some was destroyed: no reason is given as to WHY and it's called a "flukey system failure".
More like a logic failure on their part.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "THEY ARE SHIELDS IN X-WING"
BUT IN XN-WIG AILANC THEIR NOT SO I MEAN WTF TEHY CANT B SHEALDS NAD SNESORZ @ TEH SAME TIEM RITE??
No, they're shield generators there too. Also in the Rogue Squadron games (although they also make the big dome on the bottom one as well, slightly bizairly).
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
If we on the tangent of ridiculous technical mistakes, may I add the Executor nose-diving into the Death Star? This is space - ships don't nose-dive into a nearby structure unless the captain deliberately orders a collision in the first place. Using reality, god forbid, the super star destroyer would have been adrift. Furthermore, if the Executor did find a way somehow to impact the Death Star (silly name ), I think the results would be catastrophic for the space station. If a rock of sufficient mass hitss the moon,there are moonquakes. Wouldn't there be a station quake when the two vehicles collided? (This last bit may be a bit silly, then again, maybe not. )
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
What's silly is the idea that the SSD was flying close enough to such a massive body to impact it no matter what its orientation or course was. Precision flying planes hit things when they get bumped off course... not giant starships. But, the fact that it didn't hit the death star with greater speed could (I suppose) be attributed to engines being fired at full reverse trying to stop.
But seriously... how could X wings generate anywhere near the force needed to move something of that mass. Did it impact because they took out the bridge and navigation was thrown off? Still... it never would have been that close to the DS.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: 3.) How come there aren't any space sims anymore?
Can I join you in this rant? I really miss the likes of X-Wing, TIE Fighter and Wing Commander. I still have my special CD edition of TIE Fighter but I CAN'T FREAKIN' PLAY IT ON MY COMPUTER! My joystick has been sitting mostly idle for YEARS now.
(One small bright spot, though: the independent B5 Starfury sim "I've Found Her". Some minor issues but very cool overall! Too bad it's really only a demo and not much for replay value yet.)
B.J.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
Aban: You seem to forget that the fight took place very close to the station, Calrissian and the other fighters could turn around and enter the Death Star II within moments of noticing the dropped shield.
quote:But seriously... how could X wings generate anywhere near the force needed to move something of that mass.
What do you mean, X-Wings moving something? An A-Wing crashed into the main bridge of the Executor, the ensuing fire spreading in the bridge structure covered several decks and probably extended a rather long way inside the structure as well. The explosion and fire obviously destroyed vital equipment keeping tabs on orbit stabilization, engine output and guidance thrusters, and the gravitation fiend of the space station sucked the ship into it.
It would've crashed into the station nose-first if the nose was the point of the ship closest to the station, and it was traveling forward at the time.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Um, I said...
quote:Did it impact because they took out the bridge and navigation was thrown off?
It's been a while since I've seen the movie and I didn't remember if the one that got up close and personal with the A-Wing was the one that nose-dived.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: My joystick has been sitting mostly idle for YEARS now.
....no. Too easy. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: You know... I get a significant amount of joy from following these conversations.
This is what no sex before marriage does to you, people!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
So...one fateful night Aban winn need his bride to whisper sweet nothings about starship inconsistantcies and the probable length of The Defiant to get off?
Hmmm...at least he's not a Furry, I suppose.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
It's not the length of my Defiant, it's the fact that I carry a full compliment of Quantum Torpedos.
Good grief...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Quantum Torpedoes? So you're shooting Plancks?
I'll get me coat.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wouldn't he need micro-torpedos for that.
Seriously micro-torpedos.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Here's an official schematic of the ISD clearly labeling the domes as shield generators. http://3do.jediknight.net/dcm/misc/isd.gif Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It also shows where the ship's McDonalds is located as well as pointing out that a lot of the detailing on the ship is "meaningless".
Although, I do giggle at the "diesel fuel" and "sharp end" notes. It's a cute drawing, overall.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I still have my special CD edition of TIE Fighter but I CAN'T FREAKIN' PLAY IT ON MY COMPUTER!
Well, why not? Works fine in XP, with a small amount of finagling. You just have to use the right compatability mode and copy just the right file from the CD onto your hard drive.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
(I picked up the 1994 CD edition of X-Wing the other day, and it runs without so much as a hitch under Windows 2000, bizarrely enough.)
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I still have my special CD edition of TIE Fighter but I CAN'T FREAKIN' PLAY IT ON MY COMPUTER!
Well, why not? Works fine in XP, with a small amount of finagling. You just have to use the right compatability mode and copy just the right file from the CD onto your hard drive.
Care to educate me? I can't remember how far I got with it the last time, but I think I was able to get in but there was no sound, or the actual flight part wouldn't start, or something. I may have to try this again.
B.J.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
1994 X-Wing in Windows2000? Really? I can't even get Rogue Squadron to work.
Posted by Manticore (Member # 1227) on :
Rogue Squadron worked fine on XP for me when I was playing it last year...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
There are DOS emulators about.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes...we must be on guard.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Unfortunately, I don't remember specifically how I got Tie Fighter running. It's been over a year. But I remember it involving compatability mode and copying a particular file or two...
*looks around*
Or you could just use this .
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I've seen that. I have also since discovered that there are two different versions of the tie fighter collector's edition cd. The above is for the version created for Windows 95. Mine is the strictly DOS version.
I tried installing and running it last night, and everything runs perfectly except the sound and joystick, neither of which I can get working. (Remember that ASCII text sound setup screen?) I also tried using DOSBox, but it ran much worse. The joystick worked, but there was no sound, and the framerate was about 1 per second.
B.J.
Posted by Nim' (Member # 205) on :
"X-Wing: Alliance" can play in 1024x768, after I'd finished it I couldn't go back to TIE Fighter and 640x480, no way.
I still have my B6M3GW.TIE and PIETT.TFR file in my "Games\Saves" folder, though. It's been with me for 12 years. Last time I checked I was General and had about 1.2 million points. It was the special edition of "TIE Fighter" with all the extra levels and that little ugly Gunboat bomber thing with the afterburner. I think I'd finished 12 out of 14 campaigns. In the last campaign I did, there was a female pirate leader I was supposed to make war on.
This reminds me, my favorite ship name in Star Wars is "ISD Ardent". Not just because of the nice word, she saved my ass many times.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ohhhh. Yeah, you ain't gettin' a USB joystick working for a DOS game outside of an emulator. Have you tried DOSBox since November? I gather they've made some large improvements in the most recent release.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I tried it last night, as I said. And my joystick isn't USB, it's a serial one that plugs into the sound card.
Oddly enough, the joystick is the only computer component I haven't ever had to replace. Ever. This thing's like circa 1987 or something. Originally had it plugged into 386SX-16. And it still works great today - except for TIE Fighter, anyway.
B.J.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Just keep toggling your joystick: something's bound to happen.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Your phrasing was ambiguous as to when you tried DOSBox, which is why I asked. If it's a serial joystick, I really don't know why it doesn't work. I really thought USB was the problem with old games and joysticks, not Windows itself...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Plugging your joystick into the USB port could lead to problems....yeah.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I don't know why it's not working either, but it might be related to the sound card not working with TIE Fighter. Oh well. Can someone direct me to a good recent space fighter sim?
Jason: Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
B.J.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"I have also since discovered that there are two different versions of the tie fighter collector's edition cd."
Erh, no. LucasArts released TFCCD for the PC in '95 and two years later for the Mac, but there were never separate versions for DOS and Windows. You could just play the PC edition in both.
"it might be related to the sound card not working ..."
Well, obviously, if TIE Fighter won't detect the soundcard, then it won't detect any joystick input data being piped through it either, so...
(Irony, yet strange solacement: trying to run the game in Win95 then was even MORE troublesome than getting it to put up with Win2000 now, I daresay.)
[ February 23, 2005, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Freespace 2. Uber-good graphics. Not much characterization, but the flight sim itself can't be beat. Or if you're in the mood for uber-customizable open source stuff, check out Vegastrike. They have a nice clone of Wing Commander Privateer right now, and I'm working on incorporating it into a clone of WC Armada. It's partially done, should be ready in a couple months. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Jason: Do you suppose I could buy back my introduction to you?
B.J.
Only if you use the word "joystick" in an new introduction.
On the positive side, I've gotten over your name... Posted by Intruder1701 (Member # 880) on :
Well in ROTJ when those fighters destroyed the dome on top of the Executor the officer clearly states after the fact "Sir, we've lost our bridge deflector shield" so those domes on top of the Star Destroyer are shield generators.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
Or the attack and ensuing collateral explosions caused a power disruption that collapsed the bridge's deflector shield.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aban Rune: Um, I said...
quote:Did it impact because they took out the bridge and navigation was thrown off?
It's been a while since I've seen the movie and I didn't remember if the one that got up close and personal with the A-Wing was the one that nose-dived.
Unless there was another Super Star Destroyer hiding for the entire duration of the movie, then no.
And, actually, no anyway, since I've just remembered that Admiral Piet is on the bridge, so it has to be the Executor.
Didn't the X-Wing Collector's Edition set contain Win 95 versions of X-Wing and TIE-Fighter, both of which used the XW vs TF graphics engine (and replaced the midi music with film score. Which was nice if you had a rubbish sound card, but I had a Yamaha XG and TIE fighter sounded like oh cool wowo man.)
[ March 02, 2005, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yes. Have a cookie.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
), I think the results would be catastrophic for the space station. If a rock of sufficient mass hitss the moon,there are moonquakes. Wouldn't there be a station quake when the two vehicles collided? (This last bit may be a bit silly, then again, maybe not. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)