Anyone else miss Bob Brown's Star Wars discussions?

[Lord Poe]

How is that an excuse? Its still a deep screw-up, and showed that GL didn't have some sort of magic absolute care back then either;

I'm pointing out that your correlation between the N-1 Starfighter and the Falcon interior doesn't gel. The Falcon interior was designed for another ship that wasn't used. The N-1 R2 screwup was there right at the design stage.

nor was this really fixed or dealt with in TESB, was it?

It would hardly make sense to redesign a ship that was already familiar in the last movie.

GL didn't intercede on the N1 either. I don't see why the two events are not consistent to my point that its absurd to treat the OT as super-professional and sacrosant based on his claims.

Because they AREN'T consistent. One example was built from the ground up with no reference to any prior movie- then was changed at the last minute. The other is an obvious fuck up borne out of shoddy research that any fanboy could have pointed out.

[Galvatron]

Wasn't the "size" of the FX model to scale with the interior set? If so, only the exterior mock-up was wrong. That wasn't even Johnston's department, was it? I think that's the set designer's job. In the case of ANH, that was Steve Cooper (he was evidently a rookie at the time).

Funny, they had the same problem with the Colonial Viper mock-up in Battlestar Galactica...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Yeah, I think so. The design is sound, it's just that the physical exterior set was about 50-60% too small.

[Knife]

Well, depending on how you want to do it, you can scale the MF up by X2. IIRC, the cockpit set they used for shooting was twice as large as the cockpit on the exterior set.

I would have no idea what would trump what in such a thing, probable neither, but if one set in which they used to shoot the cockpit scenes with indicate a Falcon twice as large as perhaps the model or the exterior set used in ESB, then you can put the interior sets in a ~50m Falcon.

[PainRack]

Alright. When we say the "lower limit" of a weapon system's yield, we mean that due to observation Y, we know it must at least be capable of reaching point X. Therefore the weapon yield is greater than or equal to X.

We know the repulsortank can reach height A. We know the repulsorlift's flight ceeling must be A or higher; therefore it is a lower limit on what it must be able to do. There's absolutely no reason to assume it cannot be indefinitely greater, but obviously it must at least be A because if it was lower, it wouldn't be able to reach the observed height.

Quite frankly, before you shoot off your mouth on how I'm a fanatic and my claims of Brown's dogmaticism and unfounded agenda are bullshit, learn some simple math. Its good for you.

Before you start shoving the insults, read what I said. It showed an upper limit as per canon, because we have no evidence to the contary that the hovertank repulsorlifts could lift the tank higher in the canonical data.

Unless of course, you sincerely believe that its easier to go to a higher height.

Really, what EU assumptions? There's no evidence behind my critique of Brown's idiotic remarks, simply logic.

There's no reason to assume the repulsortank cannot hover at greater altitudes, apart from the fact that Brown irrationally denied this possibility as a pretext for one of his self-endulgent little rants about the great fall of the PT and how competent McQuarrie was compared to the hack Chang or something..

Getting off the Robert brown angle, let's examine this technically.
Incidently, logic states that you don't design a ground unit to fly. Does a hovercraft hover 10 meters off the ground?

Strawman. What the fuck do Trekkies and their delusions have to do with this? Oh, that's right: jack and shit.

However, this is an example of the kind of blatantly illogical thinking Brown engaged in when it served one of his rants. The capability of the Core ships with regards to speed has lower limits placed on it by the speed it took off with in the atmosphere. However, the higher figures of AOTC ICS are still correct since they are above that. Naturally, of course, the AAT cannot go higher because it wasn't seen to in the movie. Exactly the same brand of thinking.

Unfortunately, one is without logic. The other, while based on a different perspective, has one. One does not design ground units to fly.

The speeds seen in AOTC certainly cannot be the upper limit for such vessels, because we do know they are capable of reaching space, implying they can accelerate up to escape velocity at the min. If we assume a linear, uninterrupted flow of time in the movie, we can also calculate how long it took the Core ships to reach space, assuming the ships we saw later were equivalent to those lifting off from the ground.

However, canonically, it doesn't make logical sense to build a ground tank, to fly.

It is only with the release of AOTC, with the extremely high tolerances built into Zem assasin droid that canonical proof has been provided for this.

[Mad]

Before you start shoving the insults, read what I said. It showed an upper limit as per canon, because we have no evidence to the contary that the hovertank repulsorlifts could lift the tank higher in the canonical data.

Unless of course, you sincerely believe that its easier to go to a higher height.

Then you don't understand what a "lower limit" and "upper limit" really is. The only way it would be an upper limit of the maximum altitude is if we know it is impossible for the tank to go any higher. Since we do not know this, we cannot declare it an upper limit. Instead, it is a lower limit on its maximum altitude. (It's very important that these limits are being placed on the property of its maximum altitude. They act as a bound of possible values when we don't know the true value.)

or:

lower limit <= maximum altitude <= upper limit

Declaring something an "upper limit" when we cannot be sure that it cannot go any higher is nonsensical. (If you see a car drive by at 120 kph, you can't declare that an upper limit on its top speed, as it is entirely possible the car could go faster. You can only say the top speed is at least 120 kph, or that the lower limit on its top speed is 120 kph. The two phrases mean the same thing.)

Similarly, saying that the tank must be able to go above its lower limit on maximum altitude without any evidence to back it up is dishonest. There must be some evidence to back up the assertion.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Before you start shoving the insults, read what I said. It showed an upper limit as per canon, because we have no evidence to the contary that the hovertank repulsorlifts could lift the tank higher in the canonical data.

Unless of course, you sincerely believe that its easier to go to a higher height.

No, you're an imbecile who still does not get it. Quite frankly, you've had limits explained several times now, and it really is a basic concept. If you don't get it by now, you're an idiot.

The asteroid vaporization calcs are lower limits in canon: we know the weapon at least supplies the energy to vaporize the rock.

In this case, it doesn't matter if we know it should be more difficult to go higher: the only limit placed by observation is that it can go at least the observed height.

Upper limits only occur when a technology fails to reach above an observed output at maximum performance: if you had an asteroid baring down on an unshielded ISD bridge like in TESB, and they shot at it only blowing up a few dozen meters of it, that would be an upper limit; it is obvious at maximum power it could only achieve the observed result, therefore it cannot go higher.

TPM does not establish an upper limit on repulsor altitudes, period.

Getting off the Robert brown angle, let's examine this technically. Incidently, logic states that you don't design a ground unit to fly. Does a hovercraft hover 10 meters off the ground?

When your average battle rifle ranges in the 10 km range and the light tanks double as projectile artillery, it makes sense to allow them to rise to easily navigate rough terrain, as well as recieve the maximum utility with her artillery weapons.

Unfortunately, one is without logic. The other, while based on a different perspective, has one. One does not design ground units to fly.

It does when they mount artillery and one of the stated purposes of repulsorlift vehicles is to more easily negotiate rough terrain. Perhaps you ignore the existance of another line-of-sight artillery-mounting vehicle, the AT-AT, which relied on elevation to achieve greater effectiveness, in line with AOTC ICS' remarks on the matter.

Its plainly obvious that with line-of-sight projectile cannon mounted low on the vehicle, that it must climb in altitude to use them, such that they're not limited in effective range by the nearest foothill. Or do you, like Brown, think that it'd be smart to show your spiffy max altitude abilities while attacking infantry at close range, thus exposing your underside, one of your least armored surfaces?

However, canonically, it doesn't make logical sense to build a ground tank, to fly.

It does for reasons stated earlier.

[Ender]

I miss his work, every group needs a loud, contradicting voice. Keeps everyone on their toes and thinking about alternate interpratations.

[Mange]

Yes, I miss those pages terribly. Does someone know why he discontinued his site? One of the things he discussed was what he called the Y-head corvette, a mystery ship spotted only briefly at the Endor battle. Hyperspace over the official site has since revealed the ship in one of the Photoreceptor pictures. The ship is also briefly visible in the scene where the Alliance fleet is getting ready to jump into hyperspace. It is visible in the beginning of the scene right above Home One's (you know, the Mon Cal cruiser) engines as the Falcon swoops by. I thought I would mention this, as I thought the discussion about the (then) unknown ship was interesting.

[Ghost Rider]

Just a tad necromatic.