omegaLancer wrote:. The wonder of Computer..
The old Hand crank computer used by WWII ship took into account not only speed of the target, wind speed, and other factor. And it was a Gear Driven device..
And how does this prove that computers would EASILY handle the task of firing at a warship moving at thousands of gees in any of three dimensions across multiple light seconds? You're assuming that because something in the past COULD do so without much trouble, that the technology would be able to duplicate the feat in the future, no matter HOW difficult the factors. Beyond which you've been repeatedly ignoring the differences I continually cite (and which Ossus has supported.)
Droid in star wars are alway belittle, but yet they perform highily skill task. Probe droid, medical droids, Astrodroid ( can even store several jump info), and protocol droid.. C3peeO is capable of 6 millions form of Communication!!!!
Yet they are not nearly as creative, flexible, or independent as humans. It was proven in the Geonosis battle that the human troops were still superior to the Droid armies. Are you seriously arguing that a computer could be created as to predict what a human could acccurately do (bringing us back to your notion of magically prescient computers.)
So it not to outragous to think that a targeting computer would not be able to analyse visual data to come up with a statitical alogrithim base on observe speed bearing and manuevering behaviour, that would give the most likily future position of a vessel...
Its remotely possible, but its nowhere near as effective. Simply being "possible" is not good enough. We're talking about the DEGREE of difficulty of doing so, which is far greater than you are giving them credit for at the distances you claim.
modem computer already do this in arial gun battle.. The Hud display that used to target a jet gun alert the pilot when to fire his guns when dogfighting.. The ship targeting computer take into account things like airspeed and distant..
This does not translate automatically into the ability to accurately predict (or with even moderate or small accuracy) the path of a target at ten or more light seconds to guarantee a hit. The two are not even remotely comparable. Atmospheric combat is not the same as combat in a vaccuum, across the kinds of distances and with the kinds of acceleration you are talking about. You yet again assume the capabilities of the computer/targeting system will scale up at a rate sufficient to overcome the difficulties presented.
Also, I might point out what Ossus said about "hundreds of shots" per kill in Korea and such, and with lag time of a few seconds or less.
Just look at computer simulation of weather and other complex behaviour
Irrelevant. Predicting weather is not neccesarily the same as predicting where a ship will be at over 20 light seconds distance. Even if it is, how accurate is the prediction, and what does such accuracy require (what factors does it use to determine such, etc.) You're assuming that the comparison is valid without comparing the elements of each.
With SW computer/ droids, We are talking about a level of Computer technology at least 2000 years more advance than a today computers.
Technology DOES reach limits. You assume that there will be no limits, or that whatever advances they do make will be sufficient to overcome any problems of lag time, unpredictability of the human pilots/navigators, the acceleration, etc.
Stardestroyer and capital ships are not fighters and all visual indication from the film their manuevering range seem limited.
Because visual ranges are much shorter than interstellar ones, and human reaction times may require slower accelerations/speeds? And if we're to follow this logic, I could just as well point out that "all visual evidence points to ranges FAR below a light second.. thousands or hundreds of kilometers."
And even THEN, even if acceleration is slow, the observed accelerations in the movie are enough to render all your range claims irrelevant.
There was no evading the DS2 Super laser, or even Ion gun at Hoth...
This gives us about 3 examples to draw on. In two fo them (first ion cannon shot and the first TL firing) they weren't even EXPECTING it. In the other superlaser blast, the ranges were NOT many light seconds away, but thousands of km or so, with reaction times at best a few seconds (in a close-quarters battle, I might add, being hemmed in by the Imperial fleet)
So at BEST, you're saying they can't dodge weapons fire at a few thousand km to a few tens of thousands of km. This isn't even REMOTELY close to saying they can't dodge at tens of light seconds.
The the original ICS show a targeting computer for the turbolaser, Tie fighters , and the Millenium falcon uses targeting computers ( you can see this in the film also).. even the Turbolaser batteries on the deathstar.
Which tells us nothing of the quality of some computers (which can be either exceptional, or so bad that exceptional skill on the part of the gunner is required to ensure any hits.) Besides which, the existence of targeting computers does not automatically translate into the ability to hit targets at tens of light seconds, so it does nothign to support you.
look at this:
ANH novelization p.192
"Lord Vader, we count at least thirty of them, of two types. They are so small and quick the fixed guns cannot follow them accurately. They continuously evade the predictors
This helps you how? for one thing the distances are even shorter than at Endor or Hoth (with the Superlaser or ion cannon), and they couldn't even target FIGHTERs you were claiming were barely manuvering well. All this tells us is that your so called "predictors" cannot accurately predict the paths of barely-manuvering targets at point blank range (this of course ignores the jamming aspect... or that the guns were designed for bigger ships.)
In any case, this does NOT prove your claimed ability to target ships at 10s of light seconds. If anything, you've hurt your position even more.
The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology / Turbolasers
Pg. 88 : Banks of turbolasers, coordinated through computerized fire-control systems, deliver sustained volleys of energy.
Turbolasers utilize computerized fire control systems to target capital ships across vast distances in deep space
So? According to BTM, ISD TLS use targeting computers that assist them in targeting small starfighters. All this tells us is that they use computerized fire control with the guns. It does not specify distances, nor does it say anything about being able to accurately hit targets at many light second, much less the ranges you are claiming. "vast distances" is not a specific enough reference to give us a clear idea of the ranges involved.
you also discount that a single boardside consids or 100 of guns so that at least 4 hit every 2 seconds ( after the intial lag time)..
No, I don't. But the volume of fire an ISD can generate, while tremendous, is not sufficient to cover all vectors adequately at teh ranges you suggest. And even if it is, it requires such a dispersion of fire that damage is unlikely to be very effective unless you get a lucky HTL shot, and possibly not even then. Individual, or even a handful of MTL shots are not going to neccesarily do much against another cruiser or Star Destroyer.
And the Value of shield in the ICS said Peaked.. not sustained.. From the EU there is constant reference to shield levels and gradual loss of shield after multiple hits over an interval of time. So Peak value is not a sustain value..
I suggest you look up teh definition of "peak" on britannica or encarta. "sustained" has nothing to do with it neccesarily, it can refer to "maximum" values. In this case, the shield ratings in the ICS refer to the maximum power levels that the shields can dissipate. I might add this is based on what Saxton himself told me, in clarifying those figures for the ICS. If you're so inclined to disagree with his explanation, take it up with him.
The visible part may be harmless, but its still overlaid by a nondamaging part as well.