raandomname Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Some examples: Nebulon-B Frigatte and Recuscant Destroyer: one proton torpedo into that thin central section and the whole ship breaks apart. AT-TE: the cockpit, ammunition storage and main gunner's seat are 100% exposed to enemy fire, large blind spots especially on the sides and 'underbelly', large gaps in the side armor for no reason AT-AT: extremely slow and unmaneuverable, guns with firing angles of like 20 degrees that can neither rotate to the sides nor up and down, has legs that are so unnecesarilly long it is really easy to off-balance, vulnerable 'neck' Imperial Star Destroyer: exposed and unarmored shield generators and bridge sitting right on the most noticable location, no point defense canons Death Star: ventilation shaft, nuff said TIE Fighter: large target from the sides, no peripheral vision, because it is blocked by the wings and the viewing panel does not cover the sides of the cockpit, terrible structural integrity, because the large wings are only connected to the cockpit by two thin metal bars B-Wing: I dont even ... Seriously, who designed this bs and how did these designs ever enter production? Share your thoughts and add your own examples there still are plenty more. Edited January 25, 2015 by raandomname Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSquirrel Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I will say that if you read the X-wing series of books your arguments against the TIE and X-wing falls apart. I mean the X-wing's cannons are angled to intersect at a specific distance. They aren't aimed straight ahead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raandomname Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 I will say that if you read the X-wing series of books your arguments against the TIE and X-wing falls apart. I mean the X-wing's cannons are angled to intersect at a specific distance. They aren't aimed straight ahead... Ok on the X-Wing, but what about the TIEs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSquirrel Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 (edited) Ok on the X-Wing, but what about the TIEs? Agility. In space (note I'm not a physicist) the TIE's frame is credited with making it more maneuverable and it is lighter and nimbler than an X-wing. Also the design is meant to be for intimidation. Also the panels serve an actual function which I can't remember right now. Edited January 25, 2015 by StarSquirrel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdbgjfdhjgkjdhsg Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Agility. In space (note I'm not a physicist) the TIE's frame is credited with making it more maneuverable and it is lighter and nimbler than an X-wing. Also the design is meant to be for intimidation. Also the panels serve an actual function which I can't remember right now. Weren't they supposed to be solar panels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psandak Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Simple answer: Science Fiction vs Future Fantasy. Star Wars is Future Fantasy not Science Fiction. The difference is that Sci-Fi has some basis in current scientific fact. FF OTOH leans on suspension of disbelief - the why something works or is designed the way it is, is not important; it works because "it's...um...technology." ( Since the EU too much of Star Wars technology has been explained poorly. Ignore it all and just accept, "it's...um...technology" and you are much better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurbere Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Weren't they supposed to be solar panels? Basically, yes. They are solar array wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 (edited) Basically, yes. They are solar array wings. This for the TIE fighter.. X-wing....the same thing they did with WWII aircraft that had machine guns or canons in the wings....the pilot tells his ground crew at what range he wants to rounds to converge on. The Nebulon B-Frigate...that's kinda a multipoint bit. They try to avoid the central bit due to it being a ship initially designed for the Empire to deal with defense against Rebel fighters (they weren't swiming in Capital ships in the beginning.) I believe the design was inspired by something else though...the Discovery 1 from 2001 A Space Odyssey. The idea was that the rear section is exclusive propulsion/engineering space. All the living, work space, hangers etc are in the front section. The engine was powered by a Nuclear reactor in a way similar to this....NERVA In the event things went pear shaped you could detatch the engine/reactor modual. The Discovery's design was actually based in real science...the only thing omitted from the final design were wings that were intended to radiate heat from the thermonuclear propulsion system but Kubrik was afraid people would get confused and think the ship was designed to fly in an atmosphere. In all reality the Nebulon-B is probably one of the few ships whose design actually appears to be based in real science. As for the rest...yeah "its sci-fi.". Tbh this is probably the one purpose built star fighter from Sci-fi that makes sense to me from a combat AND science concept...starfury. The engines are on the ends of each which and can provide thrust both forward and back. As there is no air resistance in space this allows for rapid 180 degree pivots in all directions on the central axis. To minimize the effect of G's on the pilot they are the axis. The craft can't fly in an atmosphere, but the wings are still swept to provide peripheral vision. The only limit to the design is being able to look behind but the sensons of the time make that far less of an issue than it would be IRL. Edited January 27, 2015 by Ghisallo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Oh let me add, when I first saw an AT-AT I thought let the empire have their AT's give me retrofitted Merkava or M1s with a main gun of the laser canon they have.. I win. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrr_hypernova Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's not just Star Wars have you seen the enterprise? It's a giant pizza cutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghisallo Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 It's not just Star Wars have you seen the enterprise? It's a giant pizza cutter. Which one? The NX-01 has SOME sense to it. The warp nacelles on the "outside" to create the warp bubble...then a disk. I never understood the NCC-1701 design though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fdbgjfdhjgkjdhsg Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You mean this? http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Pizza-Cutter-Stainless-Steel/dp/B004FQDWP0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422329189&sr=8-1&keywords=enterprise+pizza+cutter It's not just Star Wars have you seen the enterprise? It's a giant pizza cutter. The Sovereign class has some sense to its design though, as well as the Defiant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffrenBrek Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 The ISD thing is a myth. The shield generators are actually not exposed, although video games like to make it seem that way. The reason it worked on the Executor was because it was being pounded by virtually the entire Rebel Fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts