StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Now that I am home, I have accss to more resources to do my work on. So far I added in some stuff on the VSD, the Allegience, and a Golan. But I also hit some extremely frustrating stuff too. Which is worse:

a) Darth Vader's TIE is powered by a reactor smaller then his head, making for a ship that is slower, less manuverable, and basically all around worse then a regular TIE.

b) Droid starfighters are powered by powercells, meaning tht each of those cells has to be capable of holding petawatt levels of energy, if not more, and that is discounting the energy torpedoes and assuming that the guns are low gigawatt levels

c) the Naboo NI also is powered by powercells instead of a reactor (see problems above), and has landing gear that it never uses

ugh.

Ender wrote:a) Darth Vader's TIE is powered by a reactor smaller then his head, making for a ship that is slower, less manuverable, and basically all around worse then a regular TIE.

Isn't this contradicted by other sources?

Ender wrote:b) Droid starfighters are powered by powercells, meaning tht each of those cells has to be capable of holding petawatt levels of energy, if not more, and that is discounting the energy torpedoes and assuming that the guns are low gigawatt levels

I dunno if it matters, but other sources such as the Core Rulebook have pegged the energy torpedoes as proton torpedoes. Retcon? I dunno.

Ender wrote:b) Droid starfighters are powered by powercells, meaning tht each of those cells has to be capable of holding petawatt levels of energy, if not more, and that is discounting the energy torpedoes and assuming that the guns are low gigawatt levels

Joules, not watts.

Ender wrote: a) Darth Vader's TIE is powered by a reactor smaller then his head, making for a ship that is slower, less manuverable, and basically all around worse then a regular TIE.

It also mounts shield generators and a hyperdrive, you may recall. The TIE Advanced X1 actually has BETTER engines than a TIE fighter, but due to the increased mass of the above two upgrades, its performance (at least manuverability) is worse than a TIE at the expense of being more durable and having greater range.

IIRC, the Tie Advanced stuff made its way into the TIE Advanced. which probably would give us an idea of its non-encumbered performance characteristics.

b) Droid starfighters are powered by powercells, meaning tht each of those cells has to be capable of holding petawatt levels of energy, if not more, and that is discounting the energy torpedoes and assuming that the guns are low gigawatt levels

c) the Naboo NI also is powered by powercells instead of a reactor (see problems above), and has landing gear that it never uses

Uh, so?

The N1 actually does use its landing gear. Watch AotC.

Master of Ossus wrote:The N1 actually does use its landing gear. Watch AotC.

What scene?

StarshipTitanic wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:The N1 actually does use its landing gear. Watch AotC.

What scene?

The opener. Padme (disguised as an N-1 pilot) sets her starfighter down on the landing platform before revealing her secret identity.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Ender wrote: a) Darth Vader's TIE is powered by a reactor smaller then his head, making for a ship that is slower, less manuverable, and basically all around worse then a regular TIE.

It also mounts shield generators and a hyperdrive, you may recall. The TIE Advanced X1 actually has BETTER engines than a TIE fighter, but due to the increased mass of the above two upgrades, its performance (at least manuverability) is worse than a TIE at the expense of being more durable and having greater range.

IIRC, the Tie Advanced stuff made its way into the TIE Advanced. which probably would give us an idea of its non-encumbered performance characteristics.

Add to above:

The cockpit is also pressurized and some sources says that Vader could even travel in his TIE X1 without his helmet. Vader doesn't have to wear any breathing devices in the cockpit beside his regular helmet.
Since his suit is not equipped with an air-tank then the cockpit has breathable air also.

That's pretty much thing built in a TIE. Still it's speed is better than a common TIE Fighter's but worse than a TIE Interceptor's.

Other X1 models lacked most of the listed devices. Less weight means greater speed.

1) I am aware of the stated abilities of the X-1. Hence why it is an issue. At this point I am wondering if there is another reactor.

2) MoO, I know they touched down, but I don't recall any landing gear, just them floating there.

I am fairly sure it was there.

I checked the DVD; that ladder just extended itself from the ground. I had a screenshot, but from some reason it wouldn't liunk to it (photos from the same photo uploading service seemed to link fine in testing).
Linky: here

Ypoknons wrote:I checked the DVD; that ladder just extended itself from the ground. I had a screenshot, but from some reason it wouldn't liunk to it (photos from the same photo uploading service seemed to link fine in testing).
Linky: here

You're right. I was just looking at my DVD. Both of them land like that.

Of course, there was ways to rationalize. It could just be that light replusorlifts are extremely cheap and use little power that the pilots kept them on in case they had to make a quick escape from some attack. Or landing gear could be a combination of aesthetic appeal with a bit of last ditch emergency mixed. I’m sure there are many more reasonable rationalizations.

Ypoknons wrote:Of course, there was ways to rationalize. It could just be that light replusorlifts are extremely cheap and use little power that the pilots kept them on in case they had to make a quick escape from some attack. Or landing gear could be a combination of aesthetic appeal with a bit of last ditch emergency mixed. I’m sure there are many more reasonable rationalizations.

Repulsorlifts are cheap, small, and they seem not to require power for operation, but yes, there are ways to rationalize it.

Side note:
In the novelization the N1s did not actually land, they only hovered to be ready for immediate take-off.

Master of Ossus wrote:

StarshipTitanic wrote:

Master of Ossus wrote:The N1 actually does use its landing gear. Watch AotC.

What scene?

The opener. Padme (disguised as an N-1 pilot) sets her starfighter down on the landing platform before revealing her secret identity.

Nope, they land on a pole. (Joining in with the chorus)

Ender wrote:1) I am aware of the stated abilities of the X-1. Hence why it is an issue. At this point I am wondering if there is another reactor.

Perhaps. IIRC, the TIE Advanced had four engines, not two (it had four red dots, which I presume to be taken for the engines).

I am curious, did you evaluate the TIE Fighter's reactor and compare it to the TIE Advanced? I'm not quite certain what the "smaller reactor" has to do with anything. Its performance appears to be worse due to the tougher spaceframe (I neglected to add that) Hyperdrive, AND shields. All that added mass, plus the power requirements for the added systems, will hamper both speed and manuverability compared to the lighter TIE-fighter. The fact it (IIRC) can still match a TIE in most respects and outperform an X-wing says alot, I would imagine.

Besides which, its quite possible the reactors were a far more expensive, miniaturized version of a standard TIE fighter reactor (in a spaceship frame as compact as a TIE, space is at a premium.) IF the reactor is smaller. One of the reasons the TIE Advanced never became widely accepted was because of cost, in fact. Vader's may have had even more modifications (since it was his "personal" fighter and all...)

Connor MacLeod wrote:Perhaps. IIRC, the TIE Advanced had four engines, not two (it had four red dots, which I presume to be taken for the engines).

Twin Ion Engine starfighter with four engines, sounds pretty weird. Maybe it has two engines, but four exhausts. IIRC Harriers have one engine and four exhausts, not quite same though, but in any case.

vakundok wrote:Side note:
In the novelization the N1s did not actually land, they only hovered to be ready for immediate take-off.

As they did in the film...

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Ender wrote:1) I am aware of the stated abilities of the X-1. Hence why it is an issue. At this point I am wondering if there is another reactor.

Perhaps. IIRC, the TIE Advanced had four engines, not two (it had four red dots, which I presume to be taken for the engines).

I am curious, did you evaluate the TIE Fighter's reactor and compare it to the TIE Advanced? I'm not quite certain what the "smaller reactor" has to do with anything. Its performance appears to be worse due to the tougher spaceframe (I neglected to add that) Hyperdrive, AND shields. All that added mass, plus the power requirements for the added systems, will hamper both speed and manuverability compared to the lighter TIE-fighter. The fact it (IIRC) can still match a TIE in most respects and outperform an X-wing says alot, I would imagine.

Besides which, its quite possible the reactors were a far more expensive, miniaturized version of a standard TIE fighter reactor (in a spaceship frame as compact as a TIE, space is at a premium.) IF the reactor is smaller. One of the reasons the TIE Advanced never became widely accepted was because of cost, in fact. Vader's may have had even more modifications (since it was his "personal" fighter and all...)

Is there a schematic that says Vader's TIE had a smaller reactor? Certainly there is room for a larger one in the larger frame.

Connor MacLeod wrote:I am curious, did you evaluate the TIE Fighter's reactor and compare it to the TIE Advanced?

THe area where the reactor is located is the same size as that on a standard TIE. Thus ther can't be a very big size discrepency.

I'm not quite certain what the "smaller reactor" has to do with anything.

Reactor size is directly related to it's power, both in real world power generation and in the method Saxton used.

Its performance appears to be worse due to the tougher spaceframe (I neglected to add that) Hyperdrive, AND shields. All that added mass, plus the power requirements for the added systems, will hamper both speed and manuverability compared to the lighter TIE-fighter. The fact it (IIRC) can still match a TIE in most respects and outperform an X-wing says alot, I would imagine.

Yes, hence why there is an issue. For it's greater mass and power requirements it has the same base power as a TIE but does better.

Besides which, its quite possible the reactors were a far more expensive, miniaturized version of a standard TIE fighter reactor (in a spaceship frame as compact as a TIE, space is at a premium.) IF the reactor is smaller. One of the reasons the TIE Advanced never became widely accepted was because of cost, in fact. Vader's may have had even more modifications (since it was his "personal" fighter and all...)

Possible, as that is the case with the TF coreship reactor (it's 5x stronger then it should be). However that is notated as being compacted, while the TIE reactor is not. It could also just be that my formula is off, but I have gone back and forth on this one and this is the best I can do. I've kinda hit a wall here since anything else would mean changing base assumptions, and since I don't know what the original assumptions are, it would basically be a huge pain in the ass.

Howedar wrote:Is there a schematic that says Vader's TIE had a smaller reactor? Certainly there is room for a larger one in the larger frame.

OT ICS shows it.

Vader's custom job has a hyperdrive capacitor and hyperdrive power module. Even if one disregards the purported function of the wings for power generation, the hyperdrive components could provide the necessary answer.

If the fighter's power systems can draw on the hyperdrive's reserves, that could well be sufficient to explain the apparent power/performance discrepancy. For a limited period of time, the extra power reserves could allow the fighter to run shields and generate the necessary added thrust to keep it on par with regular TIE speeds.

Had the fighter been required to operate for an extended period at full capacity, the power reserves would have been drained and the fighter would have probably ended up slow, sluggish and unshielded. The assumption would simply have to be that a ready-status X1, like Vader's personal fighter, would be maintained in the hangar with fully charged hyperdrive systems.

Warspite wrote:

Ypoknons wrote:Of course, there was ways to rationalize. It could just be that light replusorlifts are extremely cheap and use little power that the pilots kept them on in case they had to make a quick escape from some attack. Or landing gear could be a combination of aesthetic appeal with a bit of last ditch emergency mixed. I’m sure there are many more reasonable rationalizations.

Repulsorlifts are cheap, small, and they seem not to require power for operation, but yes, there are ways to rationalize it.

Its called having a backup system in case the repulsor lifts fail.

Ender wrote:

Howedar wrote:Is there a schematic that says Vader's TIE had a smaller reactor? Certainly there is room for a larger one in the larger frame.

OT ICS shows it.

Good enough for me. I was just curious.