Attn: Technical Comm. Update; Executor hull bumps

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-03-10 01:17pm

There's no reason to put hangers or docking ports on the upper exterior of the hull when Executor has such an enourmous hanger on the underside. Additionally, their placement as docking ports are quite poor, giving no cover from incoming fire.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-03-10 01:25pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:There's no reason to put hangers or docking ports on the upper exterior of the hull when Executor has such an enourmous hanger on the underside.

Why not? I don't see anything wrong with putting small hangars on top of a massive ship, even with a huge one on bottom. The problem I have with the hangar idea is that they aren't exactly arranged in a way that makes them convenient for landing in. I'd think you'd want them laid out in a predictable way, not sprinkled at random over the armored hull.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-10 01:42pm

Its hard to imagine what possible major function they could be if they're assymetrically scattered over the hull.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2004-03-10 02:15pm

Has anyone beisdes Curtis Saxon said they were weapons?

From what i can see couldnt the ship's weapons be in the city and trench, they'd have better line-of-sight, especially on some high spires hidden amongst the city. Is there any reason beisdes wishful thinking to assume that they must be weapons? Because the idea of them being docks or some kind of observation decks, like Phantasee said, seems slightly more sensible to me after i read it, but that's just my two cents.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, as for the randomness. In WH40K, now correct me if i'm wrong, but when they build ships they tend to scatter the weapons/docks/etc across the broadsides somewhat haphazardly simply because it's convenient. It could be one of those deals.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-10 02:31pm

18-Till-I-Die wrote:From what i can see couldnt the ship's weapons be in the city and trench, they'd have better line-of-sight, especially on some high spires hidden amongst the city. Is there any reason beisdes wishful thinking to assume that they must be weapons?.

Curtis Saxton himself says there are some features in the cortex which could be very heavy guns (larger than ISD HTLs).

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-10 02:37pm

A question regarding the use of models as canon/not canon:

Under SoD, can't it be said that the filming models are precise scale replicas of the actual vehicles, and as such are exactly representative of canon for as much detail as they give?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-10 02:42pm

You cannot empirically make that correlation, since you lack the precision in the movie the positively identify the effects model out-of-universe as a perfect scale model; extrinisically, you "know" it is, but you can't use that. SoD is a bitch.

Besides, imagine the problems; take a magnifying glass to an ISD model and find that there's not distinct cannons where PD fire comes from in the movies. Imagine the same on the Executor, and finding no distinct cannons at all.

This is why effects models, which can at best be considered in SoD as very very accurate models of in-universe materials, cannot be regarded as perfect.

The model is not the ship, precisely because of Suspension of Disbelief.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-10 03:25pm

Well, right.

I wasn't suggesting that we assume the Executor model was an exact replica to the point of having to-scale atomic structures. However, it represents at a few feet a ship of 17.6km. At that scale, one would never expect to find distinct cannons, so the lack of distinct cannons doesn't serve as proof that they don't exist...because you couldn't see them at that scale to begin with.

That make any sense?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-10 03:31pm

it's poor reasoning. when we don't know for certain whether something exists on an object because we can't see it, it's easiest to assume that it does not exist.

same with a character's superpowers, when they've been shown to do all kinds of things, yet they don't do one particular thing, it's easiest to assume that they can't do it until canon sources or something else that's official states otherwise.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-10 03:33pm

McC wrote:Well, right.

I wasn't suggesting that we assume the Executor model was an exact replica to the point of having to-scale atomic structures. However, it represents at a few feet a ship of 17.6km. At that scale, one would never expect to find distinct cannons, so the lack of distinct cannons doesn't serve as proof that they don't exist...because you couldn't see them at that scale to begin with.

That make any sense?

Yes I suppose, but I'm beginning to doubt the HTL hypothesis myself; the placement is far too haphazard even in the ROTJ shot.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-10 03:53pm

Darth_Zod wrote:it's poor reasoning. when we don't know for certain whether something exists on an object because we can't see it, it's easiest to assume that it does not exist.

Well, wait. Are you saying that my statement was poor reasoning in terms of justifying that the bumps are cannons, or poor reasoning for justifying the use of a model as a viable reference?

I'm not saying that the model can or can't be used as proof of HTLs -- that level of detail doesn't exist on the model.

However, what I am saying is that I think it's fair to use the model as a highly accurate depiction of the actual vessel under SoD...to the point that it resolves detail. In other words, I think it's fair to use the model to make measurements , for instance, and then scale those measurements to be appropriate for the actual 17.6km length of the ship.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-03-10 03:57pm

McC wrote:I wasn't suggesting that we assume the Executor model was an exact replica to the point of having to-scale atomic structures. However, it represents at a few feet a ship of 17.6km. At that scale, one would never expect to find distinct cannons, so the lack of distinct cannons doesn't serve as proof that they don't exist...because you couldn't see them at that scale to begin with.

the bold highlighted section is what i was referring to. it doesn't fall on someone's shoulders to prove that something does not exist so much as it falls on your shoulders to show that they do exist.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-03-10 04:04pm

Darth_Zod wrote:
McC wrote:<snip> so the lack of distinct cannons doesn't serve as proof that they don't exist <snip>
the bold highlighted section is what i was referring to. it doesn't fall on someone's shoulders to prove that something does not exist so much as it falls on your shoulders to show that they do exist.

Oh, right. I agree. I'm just saying that the model doesn't prove anything one way or another in this case, since it doesn't resolve detail at small enough a level to show whether or not these are HTLs. It's neither evidence for nor against.

Executor · Post by **Executor** » 2004-03-10 06:03pm

I've studied the pictures on Curtis's site aswell as the others I sent him. The superstructure area of the ship is totally different on Port and Starboard sides, some areas being more detailed on one side and some more detailed on the others.

The superstructure is the only place you can see what really looks like guns, although they would be guns with the barrels stationed vertically.

These guns have barrels with would be anywhere up to 100 meters or more in length, again you get them in different places on either side. The hull blisters seem to be of lots of different sizes and positions all over the place, none on one side seems to match the other side.

L. Buery