Technology advancement is not linear

[SuperScaleConstruct]

In looking at the general consensus here about how superior Star Wars tech is compared to Star Trek tech, there is one major fallacy which everyone seems to buy into. It is this idea that the advancement of civilization and technological progress must be seen as a linear thing. It is not and generally has not been throughout human history. for example the Roman Empire had running water and sewer systems which were not duplicated for 1200 years. Greek fire allowed naval superiority for ancient Greece and the chemical formulation of it is not understood to this day.

What would happen if say, an army with Bronze weapons, horses and good hygiene and plenty of supplies went up against an army on foot with no medicine but had Steel weapons and armor? Do you see the point? It is simplistic to declare one thing utterly superior to the other when in reality there could be a 1001 differences which add complications.

To put this back into a scifi scenario which always strikes me is this comparison of hyperdrive to warp. Hyperdrive is an order of magnitude faster then warp. Ok, thats fine, that is exactly what we see according to the plots in the cannon. But what else do we see that are the differences between them? It is funny how everyone ignores this part because there are other significant differences.

EMERGENCY!
Captain Picard "get us out of here, any heading, warp 9"! maximum 3 seconds for the ship to disappear
Han Solo "Chewie angle the deflectors while I make the calculations for the jump to light speed!" minimum 30 seconds of evasive maneuvers before the ship is prepared to jump

navigation:
"It is generally a good idea fly in a straight line at warp speed to avoid tearing the ship apart" however there are countless examples of course corrections at warp speed due to obstacles. Or even firing weapons and performing tactical maneuvers at warp speed.

Han Solo "These are the coordinates, but isn't here it is totally blown away! We flew right into an asteriod field, Alderran where dat?" every instance while in hyperspace the crew seems totally incommunicado with the outside world.

[Aaron]

In looking at the general consensus here about how superior Star Wars tech is compared to Star Trek tech, there is one major fallacy which everyone seems to buy into. It is this idea that the advancement of civilization and technological progress must be seen as a linear thing. It is not and generally has not been throughout human history. for example the Roman Empire had running water and sewer systems which were not duplicated for 1200 years. Greek fire allowed naval superiority for ancient Greece and the chemical formulation of it is not understood to this day.

What would happen if say, an army with Bronze weapons, horses and good hygiene and plenty of supplies went up against an army on foot with no medicine but had Steel weapons and armor? Do you see the point? It is simplistic to declare one thing utterly superior to the other when in reality there could be a 1001 differences which add complications.

To put this back into a scifi scenario which always strikes me is this comparison of hyperdrive to warp. Hyperdrive is an order of magnitude faster then warp. Ok, thats fine, that is exactly what we see according to the plots in the cannon. But what else do we see that are the differences between them? It is funny how everyone ignores this part because there are other significant differences.

Would you mine posting some examples of claims made on the board? I have a shit memory but theres been a fair bit of talk by adr and folks lately that it may not scale linearly.

EMERGENCY!
Captain Picard "get us out of here, any heading, warp 9"! maximum 3 seconds for the ship to disappear
Han Solo "Chewie angle the deflectors while I make the calculations for the jump to light speed!" minimum 30 seconds of evasive maneuvers before the ship is prepared to jump

navigation:
"It is generally a good idea fly in a straight line at warp speed to avoid tearing the ship apart" however there are countless examples of course corrections at warp speed due to obstacles. Or even firing weapons and performing tactical maneuvers at warp speed.

Han Solo "These are the coordinates, but isn't here it is totally blown away! We flew right into an asteriod field, Alderran where dat?" every instance while in hyperspace the crew seems totally incommunicado with the outside world.

Now in all fairness to Han, there was no reason for him to suspect that Alderaan just got destroyed. It had also happened rather shortly before they left the Space Desert, so word may not have reached that far yet.

[Stark]

Entering FTL at low speed for a high-end military vessel in a lounge = entering FTL at absurd speed for a rustbucket civilian vessel under attack

THIS IS GREAT STUFF!

[Purple]

I don't quite understand what you were trying to say so bear with me as I try to analise this and correct me if I am wrong but:

In looking at the general consensus here about how superior Star Wars tech is compared to Star Trek tech, there is one major fallacy which everyone seems to buy into. It is this idea that the advancement of civilization and technological progress must be seen as a linear thing. It is not and generally has not been throughout human history. for example the Roman Empire had running water and sewer systems which were not duplicated for 1200 years. Greek fire allowed naval superiority for ancient Greece and the chemical formulation of it is not understood to this day.

What you have here is quite a falacy. You are starting from the quite valid idea that two societies can be on diffrent technological levels when it comes to diffrent fields. However, you are making a false asumption by saying that this can be applied to star trek vs star wars. Why? Well I will get to that.

For now let me use your example of the Hyperdrive. What is the situation at hand?

Point 1:

Captain Picard "get us out of here, any heading, warp 9"! maximum 3 seconds for the ship to disappear

It takes the captain of the Federation Flagship, the quite possibly best ship in their fleet 3 seconds to accelerate to FTL.

Han Solo "Chewie angle the deflectors while I make the calculations for the jump to light speed!" minimum 30 seconds of evasive maneuvers before the ship is prepared to jump

As a counter argument. It takes about 30 seconds (if your numbers are right, it does not matter for the point anyway) for a private owned, duck tape maintained smuggling freighter to jump into FTL and achieve much, much higher speeds than the afore mentioned flagship can even dream off.

Conclusion:
What you are doing is essentially comparing a East European passenger car to an Italian super car and saying that the later can accelerate faster. Only that in our case, the East European passenger car can actually go at much higher speeds and over a much longer range.
If you want a good comparison to the Enterprise you should find footage of an equally classed starship, a top of the line ship used by a competent star navy, like say a Star Destroyer rather than a run down freighter.

Point 2:
navigation:

"It is generally a good idea fly in a straight line at warp speed to avoid tearing the ship apart" however there are countless examples of course corrections at warp speed due to obstacles. Or even firing weapons and performing tactical maneuvers at warp speed.

Indeed, however there is no real evidence that this is not equally true for hyperspace. All the while HS provides much higher speed and flight range.

For example, in the same shot Solo mentions shaking off the Imperials with the implication that he lead them on a chase and lost them. If there is no sensor and maneuverability in HS than this would be quite a stupid thing to say don't you think?

Han Solo "These are the coordinates, but isn't here it is totally blown away! We flew right into an asteriod field, Alderran where dat?" every instance while in hyperspace the crew seems totally incommunicado with the outside world.

There are plenty of good reasons why he would not detect it. It might be that his sensors or hyperspace engines are inaccurate. Given that it is a run down smuggling craft and not a top of the line ship this is not completely impossible.

It might also be that HS fallows some sort of fire and forget principle where the pilot does not have to give continuous input. He can, but does not have to. And if this is the case, Han could have simply decided to relax and let computers do the flying. That would mean he was not checking the sensors until he ran into an asteroid field and got the WTF moment.


And with that we come to my conclusion.
Yes, technology does not have to scale linearly. And yes, societies can be on diffrent technological levels when it comes to diffrent fields. However, the sheer time and technological disparity betwen the two societies means that any such comparason becomes ludocrous.

You see, taking the technology presented in both universes and the time in question, any comparison between Star Wars and Star Trek it is not at all similar to comparing ancient romans with their medieval counterparts.
And, once you start to Analise it you will see that in fact, in many ways the closest similarity (in terms of an equivalent comparison) I could present is comparing cave men from before the ice age with Warhammer 40K.
(the last bit can but does not have to be taken metaphorically)

[SuperScaleConstruct]

Would you mine posting some examples of claims made on the board? I have a shit memory but theres been a fair bit of talk by adr and folks lately that it may not scale linearly.

I'm just talking about when people suggest things like Star wars tech is so superior that the Enterprise weapons can not even damage Star wars ships if it fired forever. Or that the hyperdrive has total tactical superiority over warp despite the glaring differences I just pointed out. Being more powerful is not the same as being more advanced. For example a Toyota Prius could be said to be more advanced then a 1970 Corvette. It is still less powerful.

Now in all fairness to Han, there was no reason for him to suspect that Alderaan just got destroyed. It had also happened rather shortly before they left the Space Desert, so word may not have reached that far yet.

Imagine for a second that was a Star Trek episode. They would have routinely spotted the obstacle while still in warp speed. No such navigational ability exists in Star Wars. Either that or all the characters are totally incompetent at flying their own ships. Im very disapointed in the response if the excuse is going to be that Han Solo is incompetent in a junk ship. These differences are routinely different in the way we see Star Trek and Star Wars ships fly.

[Stark]

Dude they plowed into a Dyson sphere without knowing it was there.

Oops.

[Aaron]

I'm just talking about when people suggest things like Star wars tech is so superior that the Enterprise weapons can not even damage Star wars ships if it fired forever. Or that the hyperdrive has total tactical superiority over warp despite the glaring differences I just pointed out. Being more powerful is not the same as being more advanced. For example a Toyota Prius could be said to be more advanced then a 1970 Corvette. It is still less powerful.

Well, I admit, you lost me there.

Imagine for a second that was a Star Trek episode. They would have routinely spotted the obstacle while still in warp speed. No such navigational ability exists in Star Wars. Either that or all the characters are totally incompetent at flying their own ships. Im very disapointed in the response if the excuse is going to be that Han Solo is incompetent in a junk ship. These differences are routinely different in the way we see Star Trek and Star Wars ships fly.

Well apparently, the SW galaxy has been charted for quite a while and Alderaan is an older world. And unless exploding planets are common in SW, I don't much see the need for Han's ship to have that ability. An exploration or a military vessel, yeah sure.

[Purple]

I'm just talking about when people suggest things like Star wars tech is so superior that the Enterprise weapons can not even damage Star wars ships if it fired forever.

Go to the starting page and read the numbers. Than double check the calculations for your self if you want.
It's been shown to be so beyond any reasonable doubth.

Or that the hyperdrive has total tactical superiority over warp despite the glaring differences I just pointed out.

What glaring difference? The fact that a ship that in Star Trek would not even be able of mounting a warp drive can routinely jump to FTL while under attack and achieve speeds and ranges far exceeding that of the Federations top of the line starship? All the while mounting weapons and shields that would put your Enterprise to shame.

And the cost for that is a measly 27 seconds extra. I think you got your priorities mixed up.

Being more powerful is not the same as being more advanced. For example a Toyota Prius could be said to be more powerful then a 1970 Corvette. It is still less powerful.

That is true, however Hyperspace has been proven to be way more powerful.

Faster speed while in FTL.
Longer Ranges.
Can be mounted on run down junk heaps of ships and even on starfighters no larger than a modern jet fighter.

And that only from the movies.

No such navigational ability exists in Star Wars.

Present your evidence please.

And I still think that my explanation works best for the films.
1. Han turns on the hyperdrive
2. Han loses the Imperials
3. Tired Han decides to relax, put the thing on autopilot and go to the cabin in time to see that chess game between 3PO and the wookey.
4. The falcon leaves HS, Han in the cabin, having not checked his instruments at all, confident that there is no need to finds him self in a WTH situation he can't explain.

Keep in mind that the conversation from the scene (if I recall correctly) goes something like this:
1. They notice the lack of a planet
2. Luke asks him if he missed the coordinates
3. Han checks them manually and says no.

PS. I have not seen the movies in a while so if i get something wrong please correct me.

[Stark]

Since we've seen SW ships jump quickly after an order, his whole point is bogus anyway.

[SuperScaleConstruct]

Since we've seen SW ships jump quickly after an order, his whole point is bogus anyway.

Really? When? Perhaps they had calculated a predetermined flight path ahead of time but when did they calculate or change course instantly? You are back to the defense that the characters are all simply incompetent at flying their own ships.

If you want a good comparison to the Enterprise you should find footage of an equally classed starship, a top of the line ship used by a competent star navy, like say a Star Destroyer rather than a run down freighter.

For example, in the same shot Solo mentions shaking off the Imperials with the implication that he lead them on a chase and lost them. If there is no sensor and maneuverability in HS than this would be quite a stupid thing to say don't you think?

I disagree. You could apparently calculate a ships trajectory and follow it if you know how it entered hyperspace. Ie, once it enters hypserspace it is on a fixed route, incommunicado. There is clearly no such limitation on warp. In the Star wars scenario entering hyperspace in some way so that your entry trajectory is not detected seems an assured way to escape. Or in Han Solo's case pretending to enter hypserspace undetected while you instead float away as trash. Ask yourself why couldn't the top of the line ISD scan hyperspace and see the Falcon was not in fact traveling in it at all? Clearly the empire has no such technical ability whatsoever. There were no commands to scan for the ship or try and follow it. The Admiral was resigned to the fact that as soon as the ship was gone into hyperspace, they had immediately and utterly failed to track it.

This is further demonstrated when Vader says the Death Star came out of hyperspace to soon and allowed them to be detected by the Rebels. Clearly it is presumed that while traveling in hyperspace you are undetectable. Why not just enter hyperspace again and fly around the gas giant? Instead they have a 30 minute countdown of manually flying around it while being attacked by Rebel ships. Hyperspace took them to fixed points which they could not just adjust on the fly.

[Batman]

Would you mine posting some examples of claims made on the board? I have a shit memory but theres been a fair bit of talk by adr and folks lately that it may not scale linearly.

I'm just talking about when people suggest things like Star wars tech is so superior that the Enterprise weapons can not even damage Star wars ships if it fired forever.

That's what the numbers say, kiddo.

Or that the hyperdrive has total tactical superiority over warp despite the glaring differences I just pointed out.

What glaring differences? Trek ships can go to Warp at a moment's notice while Wars has to take a minute or two to calculate a course. This changes the fact that hyperdrive is MASSIVELY FASTER how?

Being more powerful is not the same as being more advanced. For example a Toyota Prius could be said to be more advanced then a 1970 Corvette. It is still less powerful.

This is like the stupidest example I've seen put forward in Trek vs Wars, EVER. WHO THE HELL CARES? The Prius STILL is left looking at the Corvette's tail lights disappearing in the distance. I don't care if throwing rocks at people is less advanced than shooting them with a gun, my 90 ton rock dropping on your head beats you having a P90. And the power disparity is FAR worse than that.
Also, how, exactly, is a society with power generation, material science, communications technology, propulsion (both F and STL) and weapons technology (both offensive AND defensive) HOPELESSLY in excess of what the AQ powers have NOT more advanced?

Imagine for a second that was a Star Trek episode. They would have routinely spotted the obstacle while still in warp speed.

You mean like they did in 'Relics'? 'Huh. We dropped from Warp for some arcane reason'.
Blithely ignores that hyperdrive is SEVERAL THOUSAND TIMES FASTER THAN WARP.

No such navigational ability exists in Star Wars.

Yeah, I mean, Luke totally never changed course IN HYPERSPACE in COPL. Or DROPPING THE SHIP OUT OF STARDRIVE if they get too close to a gravity well is actually a STANDARD FEATURE of Wars hyperdrives.

[SuperScaleConstruct]

What glaring differences? Trek ships can go to Warp at a moment's notice while Wars has to take a minute or two to calculate a course. This changes the fact that hyperdrive is MASSIVELY FASTER how?

Also, how, exactly, is a society with power generation, material science, communications technology, propulsion (both F and STL) and weapons technology (both offensive AND defensive) HOPELESSLY in excess of what the AQ powers have NOT more advanced

I have not asserted that one side is more advanced then another. That is your simplistic characterization of it which I rebuffed in the title. I'm pointing out the differences in that the 2 technologies are not on the same linear path of advancement. AT ALL.

A better example of this difference is the Vietnam war USAF F-4 Phantom vs the Soviet Mig 17. The F-4 was a supersonic fighter which could zoom in and out of range of the Mig 17 at will. The Mig 17 was a slower subsonic fighter. It could outmanuever the F-4 and could avoid attacks by the F-4 literally by flying in circles. This tactical scenario quite well mirrors the difference between Hyperdrive and Warp. Yes a Star Destroyer can fly 100X faster across the galaxy. Once it is there, everything we know about these scifi settings tell us the starfleet ships will run circles around it...perhaps literally if it was a combat engagement.

[Batman]

Since we've seen SW ships jump quickly after an order, his whole point is bogus anyway.

Really? When? Perhaps they had calculated a predetermined flight path ahead of time but when did they calculate or change course instantly? You are back to the defense that the characters are all simply incompetent at flying their own ships.

As per-your say so. You're also happily ignoring that it's a lot easier to change course and see where you're going when you are NOT moving at 30 million c or thereabouts.

I disagree. You could apparently calculate a ships trajectory and follow it if you know how it entered hyperspace. Ie, once it enters hypserspace it is on a fixed route, incommunicado.

It's a pity the EU disagrees. As does ANH, by the way. IF Han could simply rely on being FASTER than the Imperials he would not have had to WORRY about shaking them, he would have gotten away ANYWAY. Yet he says he had to actually SHAKE them. Also completely ignores the EU, which establishes that you CAN change course in hyperspace.

There is clearly no such limitation on warp.

Bwahahah. Remember 'Faster than light, no left, no right?'

In the Star wars scenario entering hyperspace in some way so that your entry trajectory is not detected seems an assured way to escape.

Again, ANH disagrees.

Or in Han Solo's case pretending to enter hypserspace undetected while you instead float away as trash. Ask yourself why couldn't the top of the line ISD scan hyperspace and see the Falcon was not in fact traveling in it at all?

Yeah. I mean it's not like the very captain of that ISD said if id HAD gone stardrive it could be half a galaxy away or something. Clearly an ISD's sensors have infinite range and resolution.

Clearly the empire has no such technical ability whatsoever. There were no commands to scan for the ship or try and follow it.

Yeah. The fact that they had no fucking clue which direction it disappeared TO certainly had nothing to do wit it.

The Admiral was resigned to the fact that as soon as the ship was gone into hyperspace, they had immediately and utterly failed to track it.

The other way round, actually. SINCE they could no longer track it he ASSUMED they had gone to hyperspace. You are free to establish Imperial abilities TO track a ship in hyperspace that they didn't KNOW had gone to hyperspace until a few seconds ago, they have no idea WHERE or ON WHICH VECTOR it has gone to hyperspace...
They assumed that the MF HAD gone to hyperspace they could no longer find it. With Wars stardrive speeds, no wonder. Doesn't mean they CAN'T track ships under hyperdrive.

This is further demonstrated when Vader says the Death Star came out of hyperspace to soon and allowed them to be detected by the Rebels. Clearly it is presumed that while traveling in hyperspace you are undetectable.

Quote. Disproven by Han's ANH comments.

Why not just enter hyperspace again and fly around the gas giant?

Yeah. It's not like there might be a cycle time on the hyperdrive, or, I dunno, extreme arrogance on Tarkin's part who might very well wanted the time to gloat or, I dunno, THERE CANONICALLY BEING SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH THE ACCURACY OF MICROJUMPS?

[Batman]

A better example of this difference is the Vietnam war USAF F-4 Phantom vs the Soviet Mig 17. The F-4 was a supersonic fighter which could zoom in and out of range of the Mig 17 at will. The Mig 17 was a slower subsonic fighter. It could outmanuever the F-4 and could avoid attacks by the F-4 literally by flying in circles. This tactical scenario quite well mirrors the difference between Hyperdrive and Warp. Yes a Star Destroyer can fly 100X faster across the galaxy. Once it is there, everything we know about these scifi settings tell us the starfleet ships will run circles around it...perhaps literally if it was a combat engagement.

When the ISD has the MASSIVELY higher acceleration. We're not talking MiG-17 vs F-4 (were the MiG-17 doesn't stand a chance BTW, the Rhino will simply kill it with Sparrows from 40 km out, because here we are NOT hobbled by abysmally stupid Vietnam war ROE) , we're talking caveman with a sling vs the modern US armed forces.
A single Star Destroyer outguns the entire Alpha Quadrant, and there's so far NOTHING i've seen that say Trek even BEGINS to approach Wars accelerations.

[Stark]

Really? When? Perhaps they had calculated a predetermined flight path ahead of time but when did they calculate or change course instantly? You are back to the defense that the characters are all simply incompetent at flying their own ships.

How about Boba Fett pursuing the Falcon in ESB? He cannot POSSIBLY know where they're going; he must have both used sensors to plot their course and plotted his own. Oops, you're totally full of shit and your single datapoint is cherry-picked and unrepresentative (a broken civilian ship under attack).

[SuperScaleConstruct]

functional comparison
--Warp---Hyperdrive------------------------------
interstellar intergalactic top speed
3 seconds moderate to slow initialization
no yes requires preplanned flight path
yes no course adjustments enroute
no no evasive action at speed (this is the thing about warp in a straight line)
yes no see uncharted obstacles
yes no observe destination on approach
yes no communication
yes no microjumps in a star system or as tactical maneuver
yes no fire weapons at speed
no yes detect others trajectory as they engage engines
yes no detect other ships as they are moving
----------------------------------------------------

That is what I see based on main material of these settings including some of the examples i mentioned above. I don't know if you want to continue to argue about any of those specifics, im probably done for now. The point is even if you have an idea im wrong about 1 or 2 doesn't really matter. Am I wrong about them all? You have already admitted the difference of microjumps. So one is not totally superior. There are important differences, not outright superiority by any standard.

How about Boba Fett pursuing the Falcon in ESB? He cannot POSSIBLY know where they're going; he must have both used sensors to plot their course and plotted his own. Oops, you're totally full of shit and your single datapoint is cherry-picked and unrepresentative (a broken civilian ship under attack).

WRONG! This is an example of calculating someone else's trajectory as they enter hyperspace since in hyperspace you are then moving on a fixed route. Which is exactly what the Admiral had tried but failed to do since the Falcon could not be spotted entering hyperspace (since it didn't). There simply are not any examples of detecting a ship while moving in hyperspace and this entire sequence of events with these ships searching for the Falcon shows such detection as impossible otherwise the plot of this search would have been useless! Why are they so desperate always to keep them from going into hyper speed or to calculate their entry position into hyperspace or simply to implant tracking devices? Because obviously there is no inherent way to track ships traveling in hyperspace! either that or these entire plots are pointless and a stupid waste of time by the characters!

When the ISD has the MASSIVELY higher acceleration. We're not talking MiG-17 vs F-4 (were the MiG-17 doesn't stand a chance BTW, the Rhino will simply kill it with Sparrows from 40 km out, because here we are NOT hobbled by abysmally stupid Vietnam war ROE) , we're talking caveman with a sling vs the modern US armed forces.

If you want to talk about rules of engagement that could probably be a whole other thread. The Star Trek races and especially the Federation are absolutely hobbled militarily by their rules of engagement. This is shown endlessly time after time. There are all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, planet killers, time machines, engineered plagues, interdimensional transport ect that are all within the federations power and swept under the rug in favor of the standard phasers and torpedoes.

[Stark]

So do you need detailed courses or not? If you can just 'go that way', how can you simultaneously claim it's a big deal to calculate?

Oh I see, you HAVE to say that because you think it's impossible to detect objects in hyperspace; I guess Boba Fett just GUESSED how long they followed that particular direction and got lucky.

[Imperial528]

That is what I see based on main material of these settings including some of the examples i mentioned above. I don't know if you want to continue to argue about any of those specifics, im probably done for now. The point is even if you have an idea im wrong about 1 or 2 doesn't really matter. Am I wrong about them all? You have already admitted the difference of microjumps. So one is not totally superior. There are important differences, not outright superiority by any standard.

Just by the fact that a gravity well will disrupt hyperspace travel means it has to be able to make course corrections or at least minor changes in velocity while at speed, otherwise all travel would be contained to short straight-line jumps, since in galaxy-spanning travel the further you go the more objects which will be in your flight path, objects which need to be avoided. Therefore I think that as part of the calculations for traveling in what appears to be a straight line the computer also calculates said course corrections, so that it can go around a star instead of slamming right into it without having to drop and make a new jump.

WRONG! This is an example of calculating someone else's trajectory as they enter hyperspace since in hyperspace you are then moving on a fixed route. Which is exactly what the Admiral had tried but failed to do since the Falcon could not be spotted entering hyperspace (since it didn't). There simply are not any examples of detecting a ship while moving in hyperspace and this entire sequence of events with these ships searching for the Falcon shows such detection as impossible otherwise the plot of this search would have been useless! Why are they so desperate always to keep them from going into hyper speed or to calculate their entry position into hyperspace or simply to implant tracking devices? Because obviously there is no inherent way to track ships traveling in hyperspace! either that or these entire plots are pointless and a stupid waste of time by the characters!

I swear I can remember incidents where ships are detected in HS. Anyway...

Unless you know someone's destination, you cannot possibly know their path without having sensors of some sort to track them with. Without such sensors no ship could be tracked at all, which means that Boba Fett could have never followed the Falcon. I would assume that such sensors are relatively short range since everything you're tracking is going fast enough to probably pass directly through your sensors is seconds if you are stationary.

And such sensor range would make tracking devices much easier to follow, as they put out a signal which says "I'm HERE!", which is much easier to track than to find a specific ship in hyperspace out of the many. Also, as I mentioned above, a fixed route doesn't have to be a straight line.

[Captain Seafort]

I swear I can remember incidents where ships are detected in HS.

I can think of two - an Imperial frigate tracking the Quella ship in the Black Fleet trilogy and the EV tracking the course of a Chris clawcraft in "Spectre of the Past".

In the first case the pursuing ship had to stay right on the tail of the pursued in order to continue tracking it, and in the second the ship could only be tracked for a few microseconds. This suggests that it's technically possible to track ships, but practically impossible in most circumstances due to sensor range limitations.

[Purple]

Another thing to consider is that even if we give in to the supposed advantages of having micro jumps it still does not balance the two universes out. I mean honestly, Star Trek has several advances that Star Wars does not like mater replicators and commonly available teleporters. There is no questioning this.

The problem is that many people foolishly assume that because of this the universes somehow balance out at even. And that is about as idiotic as saying the ancient Romans are equally advanced as modern day earth just because they have more advanced skills in making Greek Fire.

Now I can't discern if the OP shares this opinion or not. So I am waiting for the word from him/her/it on that.


But when it comes to comparing the two universes under any reasonable conditions (like say a fight) these things make about as much difference as Greek Fire would do for the ancient Romans if their galleys were to face off against modern warships.

[SCRawl]

You know, I really like the comparison between the Prius and the 1970s Corvette. Except it's more like a Corvette vs. a Flintstone's car. "Yeah, my car will do two miles per day," says Fred. "And it has intermittent wipers and chromerock spinny wheel covers." "Oh, well, my vette will only do 200mph, for as long as I want it to." "Did I mention that when I squeeze this bird, it makes a honking noise? Hey, do I smell brontosaurus burgers?"

As for all the rest, I always presumed that hyperdrive was essentially blind, straight-line travel, controlled by the computer. This is not to say that all travel is confined to single, straight-line jumps; the computer will take the ship out of hyperspace at the correct time, in order to avoid obstacles, and possibly even start it up again in order to continue on. This is always how I assumed that Han lost his Imperial pursuers: he made a few zigs and zags after the initial jump so they couldn't figure on where he was going based on that one data point. I'm not as sure about warp drive, since they seem to keep mentioning making course corrections without appearing to drop out of warp (though they could simply be omitting the visuals for the drops into realspace, in the same way that I assume they do in SW).

As for the time it takes to engage the FTL drives from these two franchises, it's a red herring; yes, the Millennium Falcon took a few seconds longer than convenient to engage the hyperdrive, but yes, it's a civilian freighter, and not a state-of-the-art warship. Han is probably running the GFFA equivalent of a 486-DX, whereas a Star Destroyer has networked quad-core i7s, so it might take a little longer to tease the jump co-ordinates from his navicomputer. Specifically regarding the escape from Tattooine in ANH, Han couldn't simply engage the hyperdrive in a random direction simply because the ship would travel several dozen light years in a few seconds. If Picard orders the Enterprise to warp in a random direction to get away from the Borg, he can do that with some confidence that he probably won't hit something inconvenient if he keeps it to a few seconds. Space is pretty fucking empty, but the odds of hitting stuff go up massively when you ramp up your speed by a thousand-fold.

On a slightly more general note, really, folks, we don't have to rely on the EU. The films give us enough to work from.

[Imperial528]

An idea about the jump calculation just occurred to me. Han didn't know where he'd be going next when he touched down on Mos Eisley, which would mean he didn't have the Falcon's computer perform the calculations before hand or while he was doing stuff in-town. During a battle scenario, you could easily have a computer calculate paths for different retreat sites either during the battle or before you even got there, so all you'd have to do is just jump in case things get a bit sticky.

[Batman]

Not to mention we KNOW you can make 'blind' hyperdrive jumps. That's how Talon Karrde found the Katana fleet.

[Captain Seafort]

Not to mention we KNOW you can make 'blind' hyperdrive jumps. That's how Talon Karrde found the Katana fleet.

It's not a good idea though - IIRC he wrecked the ship and killed half the crew doing a blind jump away from the Katana Dreadnaughts.

[Batman]

Not to mention we KNOW you can make 'blind' hyperdrive jumps. That's how Talon Karrde found the Katana fleet.

It's not a good idea though - IIRC he wrecked the ship and killed half the crew doing a blind jump away from the Katana Dreadnaughts.

If memory serves that's just how they FOUND them. They were running away from some OTHER scenario, and that blind jump (which was ruined by a comet being in the way IIRC) was what put them on top of the Katana fleet.
And that blind jump ending up badly was INCREDIBLY bad luck. You have to remember just how incredibly EMPTY space is.