StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Star Trek has a lot of websites where people explain the background history behind canon (but unmentioned) starships, such as the Daystrom Institute Technical Library (ditl.org) or sites where people design their own starships, like the Starfleet Museum (starfleet-museum.org) or the Advanced Starship Design Bureau (asdb.net).

Does Star Wars have any sites like this?

Closest to that is Dr. Saxton´s site (especially useful for finding obscure movies vessels, like the Imperial Communications Ship and the destroyer with no main hangar-bay or reactor bulb), then there´s the Galactic Empire Databank, with specs for movie and EU ships.

Note, these do not use un-official designs.

I was going to say 'read a WEG sourcebook', but thats mean

The ST-fan need to design utterly irreconcilable ships or make up retarded backgrounds for 'ships of the week' is cute. They want to be part of ST *so much*!!

SancheztheWhaler wrote:Star Trek has a lot of websites where people explain the background history behind canon (but unmentioned) starships, such as the Daystrom Institute Technical Library (ditl.org) or sites where people design their own starships, like the Starfleet Museum (starfleet-museum.org) or the Advanced Starship Design Bureau (asdb.net).

Does Star Wars have any sites like this?

Well, I can only think of one site that is somewhat similar, the Star Wars Deckplans site. It's not exactly what you're looking for, but it's a rather good site. It also has deckplans (non-canon mind you) for many of the ships mentioned in the various WEG sourcebooks.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to supply the link, sorry.

http://deckplans.00sf.com/

You mean things like MC100-Cruiser or Malevolent-Class Star Destroyer?

Stark wrote:The ST-fan need to design utterly irreconcilable ships or make up retarded backgrounds for 'ships of the week' is cute. They want to be part of ST *so much*!!

Wow, and some of what we do here and what Saxton does at SWTC is so much different.

Glass house, Stark.

Wow, and some of what we do here and what Saxton does at SWTC is so much different.

The difference is there is more than enough real designs to discuss in SW than in ST, and Saxton gets paid to do what most Trekkies would die for. Participate in canon.

No, Dr. Saxton does not get paid for what he does at SWTC, which is largely to "make up retarded backgrounds for 'ships of the week'".

Oh, that. I was referring to his works on the SW book-front.

FTeik wrote:You mean things like MC100-Cruiser or Malevolent-Class Star Destroyer?

Yes something like this.

Howedar wrote:Wow, and some of what we do here and what Saxton does at SWTC is so much different.

Glass house, Stark.

Erm, SW fanboys who design idiot SW ships that are uber and kewl with 1337zor glued on guns are just as bad; you just don't see nearly as much of it. Your point?

Anyway, name one part of SWTC that is anything other than speculation? Name the fanfiction part of these sites where we masturbate to the uberness of the (largely unknown) New Orleans? There's a difference between 'this is what we see, hmm I wonder' and 'on stardate blah captain gay and his vulcan engineer hoo-ah went to debian vii for testing the eighteen torpedo tubes and scar-penetrating teleporter video and tea', which is extraordinarily popular among ST fansites. And, yes, yes I know there are SW sites like this; they are not nearly as well accepted or popular among fans as the ST versions. I identified a characteristic. Its not MY fault that almost all the background for ST ships isn't a part of canon, whereas SW stuff usually is!

Stark wrote:Erm, SW fanboys who design idiot SW ships that are uber and kewl with 1337zor glued on guns are just as bad; you just don't see nearly as much of it. Your point?

Wow, one would think my explicit reference to your statement about "mak[ing] up retarded backgrounds for 'ships of the week' would make it clear that I when I said "some", I was referring to that part.

Anyway, name one part of SWTC that is anything other than speculation?

Just cause I feel like being a petulant asshole, all of the pictures and quotes on SWTC are obviously not speculation. They are canon.

Name the fanfiction part of these sites where we masturbate to the uberness of the (largely unknown) New Orleans?

See above. Only a brain-dead cumstain such as yourself could possibly see me quote part of your statement and then say to yourself, "Oh, he must be talking about the OTHER thing I said!"

There's a difference between 'this is what we see, hmm I wonder' and 'on stardate blah captain gay and his vulcan engineer hoo-ah went to debian vii for testing the eighteen torpedo tubes and scar-penetrating teleporter video and tea', which is extraordinarily popular among ST fansites.

Strawman.

And, yes, yes I know there are SW sites like this; they are not nearly as well accepted or popular among fans as the ST versions. I identified a characteristic. Its not MY fault that almost all the background for ST ships isn't a part of canon, whereas SW stuff usually is!

More straw.


Please grow a brain, douche.

So there isn't heaps of retarded fan speculation now? So I guess you're full of shit then. But from a self confessed asshole, what would one expect? I think I'll go and invent the specs for a poorly-descripted SW ship; it is, after all, my metaphorical glass house. Where would I be?

Stark wrote:So there isn't heaps of retarded fan speculation now?

Strawman. You can do better, little man.

So I guess you're full of shit then. But from a self confessed asshole, what would one expect?

Oh, I'd expect myself to kick the crap out of prissy snots like you. As I have been doing.

I think I'll go and invent the specs for a poorly-descripted SW ship; it is, after all, my metaphorical glass house. Where would I be?

You'd be in your glass house building men of straw. Again.

I think you´ve pushed the "strawman-button" a few times too much there.

Judging from your original post:

Howedar wrote:

Stark wrote:The ST-fan need to design utterly irreconcilable ships or make up retarded backgrounds for 'ships of the week' is cute. They want to be part of ST *so much*!!

Wow, and some of what we do here and what Saxton does at SWTC is so much different.

Glass house, Stark.

You appear to be comparing our speculations and Dr. Saxton´s speculations to making up names and specs for obscure Trek-ships, which isn´t true.

They make stuff up for a ship seen for five seconds at the start of "Random DS9 Episode", and spend entire pages on it, while we simply look at canon sources and debate from the information given.

We don´t simply call the ICS from ROTJ "Alucinor-Class" and make up pages of stats, since "that mean, old Lucasfilm won´t do it! ;__;"

That´s the difference.

If you have somehow found a different definition for this, please do tell us.

Err. While Dr Saxton doesn't make up names, he does Y'know, grab shots of individual ships from comics and add them to the listings...

True, but it isn´t his job to ensure the comic artists avoid shoddy drawing and thus inadvertently "create" a new class of ship every other panel.

It´s true that Trekkie-sites do this as well, but they go far beyond simply listing the ships and speculate at the function, they make up classes, ship-names and specs. I have yet to see him do that.

I think Masao Okasaki at The Starfleet Museum said it best...

Masao Okasaki wrote:I felt that most starships designed by fans and licensees relied too much on rearrangement (kitbashing) of the components of the original and refit versions of Enterprise. Following the examples first designed by Franz Joseph Schnaubelt, anyone could rearrange the components of a given cruiser type and come up with similar ships. However, while the number of ways that nacelles and hulls can be arranged is infinite, the number of technically sound and aesthetically pleasing configurations is finite and likely small.

I'd apply the same principle to Star Wars.

Galvatron wrote:I think Masao Okasaki at The Starfleet Museum said it best...

Masao Okasaki wrote:I felt that most starships designed by fans and licensees relied too much on rearrangement (kitbashing) of the components of the original and refit versions of Enterprise. Following the examples first designed by Franz Joseph Schnaubelt, anyone could rearrange the components of a given cruiser type and come up with similar ships. However, while the number of ways that nacelles and hulls can be arranged is infinite, the number of technically sound and aesthetically pleasing configurations is finite and likely small.

I'd apply the same principle to Star Wars.

I wouldn't, necessarily. We have been shown a multitude of frankly bizarre ship configurations. While kitbashing can be very silly if taken to extremes, the number of possible variations are in no way small, particularly given the standard KDY shape which is no more than a triangle with an attached bridge. This configuration has obvious inherent benefits that suit its role, yet can be modified extensively. I furthermore find the Allegiance as pleasing to the eye as I find the Dark Empire anonymous cruiser #5 or indeed the Executor. Or the standard ISD. Or the Harrow. Or... well, you get the idea.

The stuff over at Deckplans Alliance isn't really entirely unofficial. They're just unofficially created/reinterpreted internal deck plans for official ship designs.

EDIT: Argh, I just repeated what Menge said. Sorry...

Theres this site

http://www.wolfsshipyard.mystarship.com ... enres.html

The site itself is primarily B5 but it's "Other Genres" page has some unnofficial stuff from other francises as well including SW.

The SW ships are right below the ST ones.