StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I was going through old heaps of images in my computer, cleaning things out when I came across this.



Now I cannot for the life of me remember where I got this. Various google searches on "ICS" and "Victory" lead to only dead ends. I went over the print with an image enlarger and found it very interesting. The Victory itself apears to be a modle I've never seen before and looks a darned site better then the obvious Mini-ISD the original Victory was drawn as.

But in either case, does anyone have ideas who made this or where it's from or if theres even Canonity to it or whats written about it.

Are you sure that's real? It's nowhere near the art standard of ICSs, aside from the 'cut off the ISD one' turret image. It doesn't even look like the bridge of any Victory I've ever seen.

Wierd stuff you've got on your puter there.

Oh, I indeed know it is NOT real... It is obviouslly fan done... But it is Very well done in my opinion. Am curious of it's origins.

Stark wrote:Are you sure that's real? It's nowhere near the art standard of ICSs, aside from the 'cut off the ISD one' turret image. It doesn't even look like the bridge of any Victory I've ever seen.

Wierd stuff you've got on your puter there.

It might be a production placeholder shot; perhaps the page was cut from the ICS before the main illustration was completed.

Then again, it might simply be fan-made.

If it's fan made, just laugh at it and forget about it. Or do you really care what some random nerds with photoshop and Warlords think about Victories?

Stark wrote:If it's fan made, just laugh at it and forget about it. Or do you really care what some random nerds with photoshop and Warlords think about Victories?

Okay...

Tell me, Stark, if enjoyment was a corporeal thing, would you lure it into a dark alleyway, beat it over the head with a broken beer bottle, and steal its wallet? Or is your being an utter killjoy limited to the intarweb?

I'm just saying nothing in that image is valid. It's fanon. So... who cares? How do you know how well-researched it is? What are the references?

Remember, SW fans made Galaxies.

Stark wrote:I'm just saying nothing in that image is valid. It's fanon. So... who cares? How do you know how well-researched it is? What are the references?

Remember, SW fans made Galaxies.

I suppose the same thing could be said of particle physicists.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I suppose the same thing could be said of particle physicists.

What are you fucking talking about? Physicists produce referenced, peer-reviewed work, not random photoshopped images. It has no references and no canon standing. So it's only merit is whatever it draws from other (canon) sources.

Are you seriously equating a work of nameless internet fans with that of scientists?

Stark wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I suppose the same thing could be said of particle physicists.

What are you fucking talking about? Physicists produce referenced, peer-reviewed work, not random photoshopped images. It has no references and no canon standing. So it's only merit is whatever it draws from other (canon) sources.

Are you seriously equating a work of nameless internet fans with that of scientists?

No he's talking about Curtis Saxon.

Chris OFarrell wrote:

Stark wrote:

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:I suppose the same thing could be said of particle physicists.

What are you fucking talking about? Physicists produce referenced, peer-reviewed work, not random photoshopped images. It has no references and no canon standing. So it's only merit is whatever it draws from other (canon) sources.

Are you seriously equating a work of nameless internet fans with that of scientists?

No he's talking about Curtis Saxon.

If he is, then he's an idiot because Saxton's work does have canon standing, albeit not on the same level as the movies. That's the SW equivalent of having gone through peer review.

Oh wait, his work is canon and this isn't. So it's STILL a fucking worthless example.

Given the flak Dr Saxton took for the numbers he provided, I'm going to have to assume the ICS-like numbers in that image are made up. Unless things like it's acceleration and range are discussed in the novels? It's pretty scary that it uses RPG stats though: the whole ship has 120 guns.

The numbers that weren't taken straight from WEG are made up. With an acceleration of 2,800 g, this thing has 93% of the Venator's acceleration. Yet the EU describes the Victory as fucking slow, while Saxton made a point about how fast the Venator was in ROTS ICS.

Curtis Saxton is an astrophysicist, and not a particle physicist, as any particle physicist would take great pains to point that out and even try to differentiate themselves from them.

The point is, particle physics is a freaking expensive field and yet they pursue it out of curiosity. By Stark's idea of curiosity, they shouldn't even bother to pursue that given the immerse costs.

I'm trying to understand what the fuck that has to do with MADE UP SHIT. Because baseless fanwank = bad, we should stop investigating particle physics? WHAT.

I suspect Noldor wasn't actually attacking or criticizing Curtis' work, he was reacting to Stark's whining (I'm surprised he restrained himself from reminding us yet again just how much he hates the EU. After all, its possible some of us might have forgotten in the past few minutes or hours since he might have last brought it up.)

Edit: And those of you who feel an urge to do that annoying "me tooing" in response to this can shut up too. I don't really care for that any more than I care for Stark's incessant whining.

What?! Say it isn't so, Stark hates the EU?!

Some made-up numbers and fanon assumptions aside, this isn't that bad. Most of the info seems to be derived from a common sense look at canon descriptions of the VSD, and it's nice to see that there are fans out there besides us who admire Saxton's work.

You know, all I really wanted to know in all this was who made that Victory. I Like that version!

Connor MacLeod wrote:I suspect Noldor wasn't actually attacking or criticizing Curtis' work, he was reacting to Stark's whining (I'm surprised he restrained himself from reminding us yet again just how much he hates the EU. After all, its possible some of us might have forgotten in the past few minutes or hours since he might have last brought it up.)

Edit: And those of you who feel an urge to do that annoying "me tooing" in response to this can shut up too. I don't really care for that any more than I care for Stark's incessant whining.

Does it have canon standing? Is it purely fan work? Oh, I'm sorry. Apparently it isn't even very accurate. Damn the whiners who point out these annoying facts!

The best Crossroads could do is some actual research and improve it. It's a neat idea to throw out ICS-style stuff for other ships, but going with imagination isn't the way to do it. Do the novels use these seemingly very low armament numbers?

EDIT - Crossroads, isn't that either of the existing ones? I mean, the Vic has gone through plenty of virgins, but I don't remember that bridge structure at all.

I wonder what would happen if Stark stopped bitching for more than an hour or two.

As for the pic, it looks like the model of the Victory from the XWing vs TIE game. its also the (incorrect) model of the Imperator from the first "Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" I believe it was switched with the pic for the Victory either accidentaly or intentionally.

Well I found one thing out. The bridge closely resembles the original concept art for the ISD from the first Movie.

Consider Victories are made by a different company then the ISD's, I guess this makes sense.

What's this with the "stop bitching" and "stop whining" bullshit? The picture is worthless; there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. Warmed-over WEG statistics percolated into a page that tries to look like it was torn out of the ICS. What the fuck is wrong with you people that you think we have some obligation to say it's anything OTHER than worthless, at the risk of being called "whiners"?

Even though that Victory is very likely a fan creation, it's still quite good and consistent with primary canon Destroyers like the Venator and Imperial classes.

I think maybe what the guys are objecting to is the suggestion that because its non-canon, it must be a worthless pile of crap. It isn't, its a nice looking and well presented image of a VSD with accompanying statistics. That neither the statistics or image are canon means little if we're discussing this in a non-canon context. Stark suggested we 'laugh at it and forget about it' because it is non-canon, which is frankly somewhat ridiculous, unless I've read this wrong and we were indeed discussing the canonicity of this image from the OP.