StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If that has been brought up before (not the topic, that surely was, but all the quotes?). OT novellisation and script reference for flak.

It's pretty extensive, though I definetely may have missed something out.

ANH script (revised 4th draft march) MISCELLANEOUS, but MARVELLOUS flak:

ANH script wrote:BLUE LEADER
Good shooting, Blue Six... watch it, you've got one on your tail.
John D's smile instantly disappears from his face as he looks around, but can't see the ship behind him. His ship shudders as a laserbolt explodes nearby, creating flak out the cockpit window.

ANH script wrote:C219. INT. RED FIVE'S STARSHIP - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
(181B)
CU. Red Five adjusts the targeting device in front of him. He seems oblivious to the laser flak. He is very cool and sure of himself.

ANH script wrote:X226. INT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
(344)
CU. Luke concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laserbolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X wing shudders under the impact of a flak burst.

ANH script wrote:Y226. EXT. LUKE'S STARSHIP - TRAVELING
(344A)
CU. Artoo as the flak explodes around him.

Eat that.

ANH storyboards (believed to be from 4th draft) flak:

ANH storyboard wrote:SHOT # 101
LAZER START / STOP
To and from blockade runner (flak)

ANH storyboard wrote:SHOT # 102
LAZER START / STOP
To and from ships (flak)

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
To and from ships (flak)

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
From T.I.E./flak around Pirate Ship/T.I.E. P.O.V.

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
Flak

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
Flak only

...there's a shitload more of the same from the TIE vs. Falcon shooting sequence. And MORE:

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
From T.I.E. ship Flak

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
To T.I.E. Flak

ANH storyboard wrote:SHOT # 192P
LOCATION: Equator
DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP Luke. He adjusts his controls and breathes a sigh of relief. Flak bursts outside the cockpit window.

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
[flak]
LOCATION: Equator
DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP - Blue Leader flys through a heavy hail of flak.

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
At X-wing (flak)

ANH storyboard wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP Luke. The blurry Death Star surface races past the cockpit window as a big smile sweeps across Luke's face at the success of his run. Flak thunders on all sides of him.

ANH storyboard wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP.Luke.looks around to see if he can spot the approaching Imperial fighter. Flak only (in background).

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
Distant flak

ANH storyboard wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP LUKE. Flak and laser bolts flash outside the cockpit window.

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
and flak

ANH storyboard wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP. Luke as the flak and lasers streak around him.

ANH storyboard, I exceptionally LIKE this one!! wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP LUKE concentrating on his targeting device, hardly noticing the laser bolts streaking around him from Vader's ship. The X-wing shudders under the impact of flak burst.

This one is also NICE wrote:DESCRIPTION
CLOSE UP ARTOO as the flak explodes around him.

DESCRIPTION
[LUKE'S SHIP] CLOSE UP ARTOO as a large burst of flak engulfs him leaving a smoking shell of twisted metal where little Artoo once stood. The arms go limp on the smoking little droid.

Death Star turbolasers flak:

ANH script wrote:INT. LUKE'S X-WING FIGHTER - COCKPIT
Luke adjusts his controls and breathes a sigh of relief. Flak bursts outside the cockpit window.

ANH script wrote:INT. READ LEADER'S X-WING FIGHTER - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
Red Leader flies through a heavy hail of flak.

ANH script wrote:INT. LUKE'S X-WING - COCKPIT - TRAVELING
The blurry Death Star surface races past the cockpit windows as a big smile sweeps across Luke's face at the success of his run. Flak thunders on all sides of him.

AT-AT flak:

ESB script wrote:Barely keeping his seat in the tumbling ship, Dack struggles to set up his harpoon gun.
Luke swings his speeder around and heads toward an oncoming walker. Laser bolts and flak fill the air, creating a deadly obstacle course for the tiny craft.

ESB script wrote:Luke's speeder and Rogue Two fly in formation, banking from right to left and flying above the erupting battlefield. Flak bursts all around them.

ESB script wrote:Luke, glancing over, sees Rogue Two on his left. His ship shudders as flak bursts nearby.

ESB script wrote:Desperately, Luke works the controls of his flak-buffeted ship.

ESB novellisation wrote:Luke saw the explosion of his squadron's first casualty as he looked from his cockpit window. Angrily, Luke fired his ship's guns at a walker, only to receive a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak.

ESB novellisation wrote:Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it
about violently in the enveloping flak.

ESB novellisation wrote:The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.

ESB novellisation wrote:Luke and Zev could see the destruction of the walker as they flew overhead, banking from right to left to avoid the flak bursting around them.

TIE guns flak:

ESB script wrote:The hatch pops open with a hiss of pressure. Lando reaches out to help the battered warrior inside the ship.
INTERIOR: MILLENNIUM FALCON -- COCKPIT
Flak bursts all around it as the Falcon banks away from the city. Leia and Chewie struggle with the controls.

ESB novellisation wrote:Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcon's engines. The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

ESB novellisation wrote:Solo raced down to the ship's hold and began to work frantically on repairing the malfunctioning hyperdrive unit. It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters.

ESB novellisation wrote:Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE fighters, Princess Leia and the Wookiee pilot struggled to keep their ship skyborne. But explosions burst all around the cockpit, the din competing with Chewbacca's howl as he frantically worked the controls.

ESB novellisation wrote:Chewbacca's seat and helped Lando as they flew the Falcon through the exploding flak.

ISD flak (no TIEs present at the moment):

ESB script wrote:Then the small craft roars under the asteroid which explodes harmlessly on the hull of the vast Star Destroyer.
INTERIOR: MILLENNIUM FALCON -- COCKPIT
The ship shudders as flak explodes near the cockpit window.

ESB script wrote:Han pulls back on the hyperspace throttle and -- nothing happens. Flak bursts continue to rock the ship.

ESB script wrote:The Falcon banks, makes a steep, twisting turn. In the next moment it is racing toward the Star Destroyer, looking very small against the massive surface of the Imperial ship.
As it moves across the surface of the Star Destroyer, the Falcon bobs and weaves to avoid the numerous flak bursts.

ESB novellisation wrote:Threepio, after running some calculations through his computer brain, turned to Han Solo. 'Sir, if I might point out, the odds of surviving a direct assault on an Imperial Star Destroyer are-'
Chewbacca snarled at the golden droid, and Threepio immediately shut up. No one on board really wanted to hear the statistics, especially since the Falcon was already banking into a steep turn to begin its course into the erupting storm of Imperial cannon fire.
Solo concentrated intently on his flying. It was all he could do to avoid the barrage of flak bursts rocketing toward the Falcon from the Imperial ship. The freighter bobbed and weaved as Han, still heading directly for the Star Destroyer, steered to avoid the bolts.

Cloud car flak:

ESB script wrote:One of the cloud cars opens fire on the Falcon, its flak rocking the ship.

ESB script wrote:HAN: (into transmitter) No, I don't have a landing permit. I'm trying to reach Lando Calrissian.
More flak bursts outside the cockpit window and rattles the ship's interior.

Unknown Empire Strikes Back script flak (ISD or TIE):

ESB script wrote:EXTERIOR: SPACE -- MILLENNIUM FALCON
The Millennium Falcon speeds away from Hoth, closely followed by one huge Star Destroyer and four tiny TIE fighters. As it is pursued, the Falcon races toward two very bright star-sized objects.
INTERIOR: MILLENNIUM FALCON -- COCKPIT
Inside the cockpit, Chewie lets out a loud howl. Han checks as the ship is buffeted by exploding flak. He appears to be doing six things at once.

ESB script wrote:The Falcon races into the starry vastness, followed by the four Imperial TIE fighters and an Imperial Star Destroyer.
INTERIOR: MILLENNIUM FALCON -- COCKPIT
Stars race by as flak bursts outside the Falcon's window.

ESB script wrote:LANDO: Punch it!
Yhe Wookiee shrugs and pulls back on the light-speed throttle. The sound of the ion engine changes...it is winding up. Faces are tense, expectant. But nothing happens, and the engine goes off. Chewie lets out a frustrated howl. The flak still violently rocks the ship.

Unknown Endor flak barrage:

ROTJ novellisation wrote:You won't get a second chance at this, Admiral. Han will have that shield down - we've got to give him more time. Head for those Star Destroyers.'
Ackbar looked around him. A huge charge of flak rumbled the ship, painting a brief, waxen light over the window. Calrissian was right: there would be no second chance. It was now, or it was the end.

ROTJ novellisation wrote:In the Millennium Falcon, Lando steered like a maniac through an obstacle course of the giant, floating Imperial Star Destroyers -trading laser bolts with them, dodging flak, outracing TIE fighters.

-------------------------
As for me I'm mostly convinced that it's flak (which is flak-like mechanism of explosion [correctly fuse], not literally flak), not shields in the OT as well as in newer movies. What's the point of making shields extend further from the hull? To make it easier to hit the shield and damage it?
It's pretty obvious to me it's flak, and clearly stated in the novellisations, as well as on SD.net.
Why is it discussed at all?

Most of the incidents where the flak explodes or bursts can be explained by secondary weaponry aboard the Death Star and ISDs - specifically refered to in regards to the Death Star as "explosive solids."

As for "flak streaking by" - all flak intrinsically means is anti-aircraft fire. Anti-fighter guns spewing beams at fighters could be called flak and it would be perfectly reasonable. Flak is literally an abbreviation of the German Flugzeugabwehrkanone - aircraft defense guns.

As shown many times before, its silly and hardly necessary to invoke self-exploding energy beams to explain beam-shield interactions as flak.

I agree. One might ask whether a particular example of an explosion lacking a visible bolt is the result of an invisible turbolaser beam hitting shields or that of an explosive shell, but there really isn't much reason to assume that the beams can explode on their own.

There isn't a purpose for shields extending beyond the hull, necessarily. Forcefields just naturally do that.

Issues:
What's firing explosive flak in ESB? Could it be the AT-STs and their grenade launcher?

The Flugzeugabwehrkanone explanation may cover why the TIE fire was referred to as flak, and it need not "burst" except as a shield interaction. Besides, that instance is a script, designed to be more descriptive of visuals than of technical details, I should think.

Further, we know many missiles have some sort of bright glow around them, making them seems similar to the laser weapons. It is possible that in some instances what looks like a laser bolt might well be a missile or shell of some sort, though a scene-by-scene disection might force us to discard this possibility. I won't claim to have any interest in presenting a thorough argument at this time.

Really though, the biggest issue with the flak concept is this - where, ever, in the whole of Star Wars continuity, has there ever been an explicit verbal or written reference to lasers exploding on their own, or being set to do this as opposed to striking the shields normally? Sure, visuals and movies trump words and EU, but outside of the contestible use of the word 'flak' I can't think of anything that really nails the issue down, and this is just the sort of mechanic which is more likely to be exaggerated to the point of sillyness by WEG or a novelist than totally ignored. Maybe this is just another reason to bash those entities, but I need more convincing.

Illuminatus Primus

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Most of the incidents where the flak explodes or bursts can be explained by secondary weaponry aboard the Death Star and ISDs - specifically refered to in regards to the Death Star as "explosive solids."

Where is the Death Star in ESB? What does the Death Star have to do with TIE Fighter flak bursts at all? And where is that "additional" weaponry aboard the AT-AT, where the script and novellisation clearly state that the flashes around snowspeeders are flak bursts?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:As for "flak streaking by" - all flak intrinsically means is anti-aircraft fire. Anti-fighter guns spewing beams at fighters could be called flak and it would be perfectly reasonable. Flak is literally an abbreviation of the German Flugzeugabwehrkanone - aircraft defense guns.

I know flak can mean anti-fighter guns, but this is not the case for those quotes (just care to read).
TIE fighters mount aircraft defense guns? And the air filled with flak is literally filled with aircraft defense guns, I guess. What a horror to behold for Luke and Dack, as the air fills with cannons and guns all around them...

Illuminatus Primus wrote:As shown many times before, its silly and hardly necessary to invoke self-exploding energy beams to explain beam-shield interactions as flak.

Beam-shield interactions? Hardly. If so, the SW shield constructors are dumb beyond measure, making it easier to hit the craft because of shield expansion.
I guess that "it's silly" also refers to SD.net beam weapons page, as it states that the beams are self-exploding.

SD.net wrote:Turbolaser bolts are capable of detonating with a "flak effect" at a predetermined range, as demonstrated by ISD fire in TESB (against the Falcon) and AT-AT anti-aircraft fire.

Alan Bolte

Alan Bolte wrote:but there really isn't much reason to assume that the beams can explode on their own.

There is sufficient reason. It's shown above.

Alan Bolte wrote:There isn't a purpose for shields extending beyond the hull, necessarily. Forcefields just naturally do that.

Sure? I thought they extend no further than several dms from the hull, if they even extend at all. Just watch that TPM. The N1s shields "fuzz up" a few decimeters from the hull and become invisible. Then a droid fires at the ship. The bolt strikes the hull with no "flak effect".
And there are many other occurences where a bolt stikes a shielded craft, produces no "flak effect".

Alan Bolte wrote:What's firing explosive flak in ESB? Could it be the AT-STs and their grenade launcher?

Shit, the moviemakers INTENDED the AT-AT blasterfire, as well as ALL blasterfire in ESB to be FLAK. That's the script, for George's sake.

Alan Bolte wrote:The Flugzeugabwehrkanone explanation may cover why the TIE fire was referred to as flak

Oh yeah. Since when TIE fighters mount AA guns?

Besides, that instance is a script

Novellisation as well. Explicit, and numerous.

It is possible that in some instances what looks like a laser bolt might well be a missile or shell of some sort

Or that the "laser bolts" are projectile weapons. To which there are hints as well.

where, ever, in the whole of Star Wars continuity, has there ever been an explicit verbal or written reference to lasers exploding on their own, or being set to do this as opposed to striking the shields normally?

It's in the goddamn canon, right above your post. "Lasers" aren't lasers in SW, and

outside of the contestible use of the word 'flak'

It isn't even anywhere near to be contestible. Unless you think that script writers and novellisators are dumbheads, or that the air around Luke and Dack filled with literally AA guns. Exploding AA guns.

Maybe this is just another reason to bash those entities, but I need more convincing.

I will have to dig up visual effects folk interviews, and even Lucas interviews maybe. I recall that it has been spoken of "flak", although I may be wrong.

After all, why not watch AOTC or ESB?

The explosions of "laser bolts" in the movie are so far from the craft that it would be ridiculous to take them as shield-bolt interactions.

Sometimes the flak bursts occur behind the passing ship, which would be ridiculous to pose as a "shield" interaction as well. Unless SW shields are so stupid that they even catch blasts that already missed the target by several meters.

Also, the ANH progress storyboards show quite clearly that the laserfire was not just "afterthought" named flak, but originally intended to to be flak. There are multiple instances of:

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
To and from ships (flak)

ANH storyboard wrote:LAZER START / STOP
From T.I.E. ship Flak

And... adding more ANH references, which I missed out.

From Wikipedia: Flak is a nickname for anti- aircraft guns.

Anti-aircraft, or air defense, is any method of combating military aircraft from the ground.

Note: "from the ground". I fail to see how this could apply to a Tie fighter. As I know, "Flak" was never used for fighter weapons (nor the defensive weapons of bombers).

vakundok
Yes, that is exactly why literal interpretation of flak as of "AA guns" cannot be used in this case. There are no "AA guns" on the TIEs, neither can "AA guns" fill the air and explode.
From the same article you reference:

Wikipedia wrote:There shells are usually fitted with different types of fuzes (barometric (air pressure), time-delay, or proximity) to send exploding "flak" into a specified area.

What is spoken about that flak technology is exactly what is observed in the movies and what was intended by the moviemakers. They obviously intended "laser" bolts to produce the VT fuse "flak" effect, not shield interaction.

The explosions of "laser bolts" in the movie are so far from the craft that it would be ridiculous to take them as shield-bolt interactions.

In the case of AOTC, I proposed some time ago that the LAAT has larger shields than normal, since it has open doors where the Clonetroopers stand, and bolt/shield interactions closer would be harmful.

Mike has also brought up the point in the past that there's an implict assumption in this "surely the shield wouldn't extend out that far!" that the shield has some sort of clearly defined point where it doesn't exist anymore. Or something like that, this was quite a long time ago and I'm going from memory. Feel free to correct, Mike.

Vympel

In the case of AOTC, I proposed some time ago that the LAAT has larger shields than normal

As in the case with TPM (I hope someone makes a short clip of that shot from a DVD), I'll point it out that when the LAATs were engaged on the arena, the blasters DID deflect from it's hull, not from a far-away shield, and with no flak (fuse) effects.

implict assumption in this "surely the shield wouldn't extend out that
far!"

Very true, since that is what basic logic and evidence scream. In TPM there is a visible glow around the hull when the shield is activated. Then, when the droid in TPM shoots the N-1 with shields up, it just deflects from the armor. From the very hull. With no fuse effects, nothing.
And shields stretching 2-3 times the ship volume IS ridiculous. That makes shield easier to punch down. Shots going for a miss by meters in case of small ships are "caught" by the shield is clearly something unacceptable in combat. And what with the uniformity and distribution of the bursts? Inaccurate proximity fuse makes more sense than shields which "catch" the hit when it already missed the craft.

While noting the fact that even primitive human projectiles are VT-fuse capable, and also the fact that the intention of the movie-makers was to show the proximity fuse effects, there's little doubt that the assumption "shields cannot stretch" is very, very true.

Stas Bush wrote: As in the case with TPM (I hope someone makes a short clip of that shot from a DVD), I'll point it out that when the LAATs were engaged on the arena, the blasters DID deflect from it's hull, not from a far-away shield, and with no flak (fuse) effects.

When they were dropping off Clonetroopers and picking up Jedi- for all we know they turned off their shields due to possible interactions with lightsabres or something. We know from the AOTC novelization that LAATs were shielded, and it refers to the shields "turning away" fire during the battle proper, outside of the arena. Check Mike's canon database.

Very true, since that is what basic logic and evidence scream. In TPM there is a visible glow around the hull when the shield is activated. Then, when the droid in TPM shoots the N-1 with shields up, it just deflects from the armor. From the very hull. With no fuse effects, nothing.

That's a hand weapon. It's hardly the same. And who said the shields of a starfighter as the same as a LAAT?

And shields stretching 2-3 times the ship volume IS ridiculous. That makes shield easier to punch down. Shots going for a miss by meters in case of small ships are "caught" by the shield is clearly something unacceptable in combat. And what with the uniformity and distribution of the bursts? Inaccurate proximity fuse makes more sense than shields which "catch" the hit when it already missed the craft.

It doesn't make any sense at all- proximity fused energy weapons? That's garbage. I will never subscribe to this flak burst theory. I think my LAAT theory is a much better explanation than that.

While noting the fact that even primitive human projectiles are VT-fuse capable

Then energy weapons should be too? Pahleeze.

and also the fact that the intention of the movie-makers was to show the proximity fuse effects

Movie makers "intent"? Subjective nonsense. Explict statements are preferred.

there's little doubt that the assumption "shields cannot stretch" is very, very true.

Explain where these flak effects went when the LAAT landed at Dooku's hangar and was promptly destoyed by Dooku's fighters? What, did they all of a sudden turn off these magical energy weapon proximity fuses, or where the shields dropped?

Vympel

When they were dropping off Clonetroopers and picking up Jedi- for all we know they turned off their shields due to possible interactions with lightsabres or something.

I'm not a dumbass; I know that they switched off the shield. This was when the blasterfire leaved a scorchmark on the LAAT.
I'm talking about PRIOR to disembarking the clones. The shields were THERE (novellisation!) and they were DEFLECTING blaster bolts, and no fuse effects and faraway impacts.
That's it.

And who said the shields of a starfighter as the same as a LAAT?

Maybe the above example.

That's a hand weapon. It's hardly the same.

Droid's blasters ARE hand weapons. Both in AOTC and TPM. Both produce no VT fuse.

It doesn't make any sense at all- proximity fused energy weapons?

It DOES make sence.
http://www.furryconflict.com/tech/techn ... asers.html
At least, to me.

Someone claiming this to be from Fact Files wrote:These pockets of plasma are retained in a small magnetic bottle at the base of the turbolaser barrel (Above middle and above left), until the moment the weapon discharges. When it does, the magnetic seal at the mouth of the containment chamber is released, and a ring pulse guides and accelerates the excited atoms along the barrel and out of the apparatus (Below left). The visible effect is a condensed bolt of green glowing plasma (Below right), directed at high velocities (anywhere up to .25c) toward a target. Less refined or impure Tibanna will yield different color bolts ranging anywhere from red to blue to green.
As the plasma bolt travels through space, it is accompanied by a beam of invisible electrons that propagate along the bolt's desired trajectory at the speed of light. These electrons are generated at the mouth of the turret and "spin" around the path of the plasma bolt, creating an electromagnetic tube which helps to focus the packet and keep it from dispersing over long distances. Without this "electron jacket," the turbolaser bolt quickly dissipates into harmless gas, and it is this jacket which ray shielding works to counteract. Often, when a turbolaser impacts a vessel, it is this electromagnetic field which exerts a sizeable force on a target, resulting in a distinct impact sensation compared to a physical collision. Turbolasers can also be used for "flak" bursts, by purposely closing and then terminating the confinement beam before the bolt hits a target.

Blasters operate on a similar principle to turbolasers, but only heat up the Tibanna to 4,500 Kelvin using a power cell instead of a laser; higher temperatures would be harder to control and require a larger magnetic shielding apparatus.

Then energy weapons should be too? Pahleeze.

Yeah. Except the fact blasters are projectile weapons.

Subjective nonsense. Explict statements are preferred.

It was explicit. Flak burst - is that not explicit enough for you?

Explain where these flak effects went when the LAAT landed at Dooku's hangar and was promptly destoyed by Dooku's fighters?

Where are the flak effects when a bomber gets shot by AA guns?

What, did they all of a sudden turn off these magical energy weapon proximity fuses, or where the shields dropped?

Suddenly NO.
When the LAAT lost it's "character shield" (the Jedis)

First shot - direct hit.
Second shot - preliminary proximity fuse, then hit.
Third shot - fuse, then hit.
Fourth shot - a total miss, but the LAAT already explodes, detonation begins between 3th and 4th shots.

And there is another scene of LAAT death. Shots continue to fuse even after it detonated, IIRC.

Goddamn it.

You disappear for a year, then you USE THE FUCKING SEARCH.

Flak bursts do not exist.

Do your own catch-up.

Do not repeat any of the arguments covered there, ok?

Actually, I trust ME. It's a silly question "who do you trust" in a matter which requires analysis. Mike Wong's site states TL's are flak-capable (and why should we be thinking otherwise?) and makes theories about what is the cause of that.
That is all.
"Flak bursts do not exist" is a strange excuse, because it's so explicitly stated in novellisations, scripts and storyboards. Here you go.

Flak bursts are not magical. Neither is VT fuse. Both are known on Earth to exist.
What IS magical are shields which CATCH a hit which misses the ship by SEVERAL MAGNITUDES, and catch that hit BEHIND the ship.

"Volumetric" shields? And what the fuck is that N1-s shield?

The bolt that hit the Tantive IV, for example, would have harmlessly passed by it if its shields had a clearly defined outer boundary, since there would be no reason to make this boundary larger than the ship itself.

From the said thread. Here you go - "shields" catch blasts destined to miss. What makes more sence - that, or VT fuse?

Stas Bush wrote:What is spoken about that flak technology is exactly what is observed in the movies and what was intended by the moviemakers. They obviously intended "laser" bolts to produce the VT fuse "flak" effect, not shield interaction.

Flak means AA guns and also is obviously a reference colloquially to AA fire itself. SW under SoD is "role-mapped" or translated. So whatever "anti-starfighter turbolaser fire" is in Basic, it becomes "flak" when translated into our common English terminology.

And intent means nothing, dumbass. Energy beams have no mechanism to randomly detonate omnidirectionally with far less energy content then they do upon impact (violation of CoE and CoM).

Stas Bush wrote:Very true, since that is what basic logic and evidence scream. In TPM there is a visible glow around the hull when the shield is activated. Then, when the droid in TPM shoots the N-1 with shields up, it just deflects from the armor. From the very hull. With no fuse effects, nothing.

AOTC ICS says that shields gradually dissipate irregardless of defined surfaces in atmosphere. This makes sense to anyone who knows anything about force fields.

Stas Bush wrote:And shields stretching 2-3 times the ship volume IS ridiculous.

Not to people who know anything about force fields.

Stas Bush wrote:That makes shield easier to punch down.

I see our conception of shields is trapped in the Treknobabble "it must be a magic perfectly defined bubble" rather than real life force fields.

Hint: real life force fields dissipate as they extend outward. Do you really think they have the same absorption and dissipation abilities as it fades away?

Besides, this is observed in the canon - if you'd bothered yourself to check the films, you'd notice that disrupted bolts in AOTC continue through the explosion. So obviously although disrupted, and absorbtion ability dramatically decreases as the shields dissipate (inverse-cubed law would've told you this though).

Stas Bush wrote:Shots going for a miss by meters in case of small ships are "caught" by the shield is clearly something unacceptable in combat. And what with the uniformity and distribution of the bursts? Inaccurate proximity fuse makes more sense than shields which "catch" the hit when it already missed the craft.

Except that energy beams are not physical projectiles with fuzes, idiot. AOTC ICS tells us what they are. SW ICS tells us what TIEs mount. EGtW&T tells us what the visible turrets on the Death Star were.

Stas Bush wrote:While noting the fact that even primitive human projectiles are VT-fuse capable, and also the fact that the intention of the movie-makers was to show the proximity fuse effects, there's little doubt that the assumption "shields cannot stretch" is very, very true.

No, you're just clueless and can't use the search function.

Stas Bush wrote:Actually, I trust ME.

I don't. You've viewed an inability to comprehend the body of your evidence (TESB "bursts-without-beams", AOTC "beams-through-bursts," AOTC ICS on shield dynamics), you've shown an inability to understand the problem with observation (violation of CoM and CoE), and inability to deal with other sources (explicitly stating that TIEs are firing energy beams), failing to propose a mechanism for your theory (fuzed energy beams?), and arrogance (for some reason thinking that the link to a prior debate does not contain any of your arguments previously refuted - I just must've posted it for shits).

Oh, and you don't know anything about force fields except what Trek showed you.

Stas Bush wrote:It's a silly question "who do you trust" in a matter which requires analysis.

Its not trust, numbnuts, its a matter of your not-so-original arguments having been dragged out and dealt with - along with consideration of more novel ones - months ago, and I even did your homework in finding them and linking you to them. You're just lazy, ignorant, and arrogant.

Stas Bush wrote:Mike Wong's site states TL's are flak-capable (and why should we be thinking otherwise?) and makes theories about what is the cause of that.

Actually, he lists it as a possibility. If you didn't bother to notice, most of Mike's pages are horridly out-of-date, but guess that missed your keen analytical eye.

Mike actually discusses real life force fields and such, and the problems with "fuzed energy beams" in the thread I linked for you, which it seems you didn't even check.

Stas Bush wrote:"Flak bursts do not exist" is a strange excuse, because it's so explicitly stated in novellisations, scripts and storyboards. Here you go.

Very well. Most if not all filmic energy bursts beside starships are shield interactions, not magical beams knowing when to explode in violation of CoM and CoE.

Any real flak bursts are the culprit of "explosive solids" such as those described in ANH, and with such examples as Bowcasters (unless you believe Brian Young's interpretation - they are blasers), or AT-TE main guns.

Stas Bush wrote:Flak bursts are not magical. Neither is VT fuse. Both are known on Earth to exist.

Yeah, on shells, idiot. Almost everything in the movies has to be an energy beam.

Stas Bush wrote:What IS magical are shields which CATCH a hit which misses the ship by SEVERAL MAGNITUDES, and catch that hit BEHIND the ship.

No, its simple force field physics. But things like real science are clearly beyond you.

Look up "inverse-cubed law," por favor.

Stas Bush wrote:"Volumetric" shields? And what the fuck is that N1-s shield?

READ YOUR SOURCES - AOTC ICS.

Stas Bush wrote:From the said thread. Here you go - "shields" catch blasts destined to miss. What makes more sence - that, or VT fuse?

READ YOUR SOURCES - AOTC ICS.

Stas Bush wrote: I'm not a dumbass; I know that they switched off the shield. This was when the blasterfire leaved a scorchmark on the LAAT.
I'm talking about PRIOR to disembarking the clones. The shields were THERE (novellisation!) and they were DEFLECTING blaster bolts, and no fuse effects and faraway impacts.

Who gives a shit? They're still HAND WEAPONS, which are not the same as fighter grade weaponry.

Maybe the above example.

See above.

Droid's blasters ARE hand weapons. Both in AOTC and TPM. Both produce no VT fuse.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Now if you'll just inform me as to what relevance this has to the weapons on a Geonosian starfighter? And this "VT fuse" is circular logic, that's what you have to prove, not a premise.

It DOES make sence.
http://www.furryconflict.com/tech/techn ... asers.html
At least, to me.

A load of rubbish. There's no damn point to a "flak burst". You're imparting a miniscule fraction of the total energy to the target for no good reason whatsoever.

Yeah. Except the fact blasters are projectile weapons.

Nonsense, they aren't physical shells with fuses.

It was explicit. Flak burst - is that not explicit enough for you?

Then perhaps you can direct me to where the "flak" is? You know, the metal shards? It's obviously an expression, nothing more.

Where are the flak effects when a bomber gets shot by AA guns?

Could you come up with a more unworkable analogy? Do I need to point out the difference, really?

Suddenly NO.
When the LAAT lost it's "character shield" (the Jedis)[/qutoe]

Character shields are not permitted in SoD.

First shot - direct hit.
Second shot - preliminary proximity fuse, then hit.
Third shot - fuse, then hit.
Fourth shot - a total miss, but the LAAT already explodes, detonation begins between 3th and 4th shots.

And there is another scene of LAAT death. Shots continue to fuse even after it detonated, IIRC.

And this proves your point how? Post screenshots.

The Furry Conflict's Webmaster Being Raped.

I strongly suggest you do not appeal to FC or even the Fact Files (published abroad, they are considered inferior to U.S. sources by LFL's own remarks).

Vympel

And this proves your point how? Post screenshots.

Gone for the DVD.

Do I need to point out the difference, really?

Hmm. The difference is the shield. But when it's down, it won't make any difference.

You know, the metal shards?

I know the shards. And I remember the "shards" in the Tantive impact in ANH quite clearly.

Nonsense, they aren't physical shells with fuses.

They aren't shells. But they are projectile weapons. Are they not?

You're imparting a miniscule fraction of the total energy to the target for no good reason whatsoever.

Hmm. If a bolt MISSES the target, would it be reasonable to explode it, or to let it go BY? Even if the energy is miniscule compared to a direct hit?

Now if you'll just inform me as to what relevance this has to the weapons on a Geonosian starfighter?

The relevance? Blasters, TLs and LSC operate same principles. Blasters are projectile weapons. So either blasters are COMPLETELY different from the "shield-interacting" shots of LS cannons and TLs, or it's just the fuse mode.

They're still HAND WEAPONS, which are not the same as fighter grade weaponry

And what the george does "grade" mean, if the principle is the same? A BIG PROJECTILE IS STILL A PROJECTILE. It doesn't miraculously turn into something else, you know.

Now, "laser" cannons are as projectile as blasters are, see for reference:

AOTC novellisation wrote:For while Obi-Wan and most of the Jedi were sword fighters, Count Dooku was a fencer, following an older fighting style, one more effective against weapons like lightsabers than against projectile weapons like blasters.

And here the "laser cannons":

TPM novellisation wrote:The Federation was quick to test the shield's effectiveness. On a signal from Droid Commander OOM-9, who in turn was responding to a command from the deep-space control center, the tanks opened fire, their laser cannons sending round after round into the covering. Searing beams hammered into the shield and shattered ineffectively against the liquid energy surface, unable to penetrate.
Within their protective covering, the Gungans waited patiently, weapons
ready, trusting the strength of their shield.
Astride his kaadu, Jar Jar Binks flinched and squirmed fearfully,
muttering various prayers to ward off the destruction he was certain would find him otherwise. Relentlessly, the Trade Federation cannons continued their attack, streamers of energy lancing from their barrel mounts, pounding at the covering. The flash and burn and explosion were blinding and deafening, but the Gungans held their ground.
Finally, the Trade Federation guns went still. Try as they might, they
could not break through the Gungan energy shield. Within their protective canopy, the Gungans cheered and brandished their weapons triumphantly.
[...]
The Gungan shield wall was designed to deflect large, slow-moving
objects of density and mass such as artillery vehicles and small,
fast-moving objects generating extreme heat such as projectiles from weapons fire.

The "laser cannons" as well as blasters are nothing more than projectile weapons spewing out freakishingly "energized" particles.

Illuminatus Primus

Flak means AA guns and also is obviously a reference colloquially to AA fire itself.

True. This is why I pose the following questions:
1) what "anti-aircraft turbolasers" are on the TIE fighters.

Han checks as the ship is buffeted by exploding flak.

The ship shudders as flak explodes near the cockpit window.

The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

There is NO way getting around those quotes.
As well as no way getting around that:

ESB novellisation wrote:The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.

What projectiles exactly did the AT-AT posess? I guess the only projectiles it posessed were the "laser" beams, otherwise it's inconsistent, meaningless and directly contradicting the TPM and AOTC novels, which state blasters/laser cannons are projectile weapons.
Actually the "no bolts" explosions may have occured from the AT-AT firing it's cannons in VT fuse mode. There would be same high-velocity gas projectiles, but not so "energized" as it's visible bolts, invisible. Or just plain forcefield containments fired without Tibanna at all at a high speed. And it would be the flak AT-AT needs so desperately.

SW under SoD is "role-mapped" or translated. So whatever "anti-starfighter turbolaser fire" is in Basic, it becomes "flak" when translated into our common English terminology.

Yes.

And intent means nothing, dumbass.

Am I reading correct? Intent means nothing? Then why exactly does the Star Destroyer "testicle theory" lie buried beneath the ground? Is it not because of Edlund's quote which shows the clear INTENT of the dome structures? Is it not because of logic?

Energy beams

Define. Simply that: define turbolasers. As Mike said on his TL webpage, it's easier to say what the TL's are NOT. "Energy beams"? Yeah? How the fuck are blasters called projectile weapons, and operate on the same principle as the turbolaser? How come?

have no mechanism to randomly detonate omnidirectionally with far less energy content then they do upon impact (violation of CoE and CoM).

Far less energy content? Should I be noting that SW weapons have power settings, or is that not obvious enough for you? That "content" isn't a constant for each shot (or each type of shot, if there are fixed values). It's pretty obvious for anyone watching Star Wars.

AOTC ICS says that shields gradually dissipate irregardless of defined surfaces in atmosphere.

Why did the blaster shot hit the shielded fighter. Why did the blasters hit the shielded hulls of LAATs. That is all easily explained if the blasters/turbolasers can operate in a VT fuse mode.

This makes sense to anyone who knows anything about force fields.

It made sence before for me, actually. Watching Star Wars over and over revealed that it has no sence in it whatsoever.
Watch the gungan shields. And droideka shields.

irregardless of defined surfaces in atmosphere

Hell no. How did the droideka or gungan shields "dissipate" exactly?

Not to people who know anything about force fields.

But to people who watch Star Wars carefully it makes no sence. "Beams" and other projectiles hit shielded ships just near the armor, without any distant "interaction". Shielded ships, not some unshielded piece of junk.

Do you really think they have the same absorption and dissipation abilities as it fades away?

Judging by the AOTC gunship scenes - yes. Explosions TENS of metres away are same as the ones 1-2 metres away.

And if it does NOT have that dissipation ability, how come the blasts DISSAPPEAR? Huh? Or are blasts which exploded 10 metres away somehow little-powered (so that the "weak" perimeter of the dissipating field could stop it?), but the ones exploding close - high-powered? Would that be the ridiculous case? But even that extrapolation does not fit the evidence - handheld weapons strike ships near armor, regardless of the shield and however far it may stretch. Here you have it.

you'd notice that disrupted bolts in AOTC continue through the explosion

Yes. Once it even continued flying in the very same direction it was flying. Which would be impossible if it interacted with a shield. While a fuse of a part of the bolt would have no contradictions.

absorbtion ability dramatically decreases as the shields dissipate (inverse-cubed law would've told you this though).

Does it? I guess then the capital ship shields are pretty fucked up - they catch beams so far away, but can't stop other beams and fighters from striking it.
And how exactly does that ability decrease in AOTC, where same effects are observed 10 metres and 1 metre away from the LAAT?
And, lastly, how come the field interacted with a bolt already PASSED behind the ship, is that not weird?

Except that energy beams are not physical projectiles with fuzes, idiot.

Define the "energy beams" of SW. They aren't lasers, one for sure, and partly affected by gravity.

AOTC ICS tells us what they are.

And what exactly they are?

SW ICS tells us what TIEs mount.

A pair of "laser" cannons.

EGtW&T tells us what the visible turrets on the Death Star were.

Whatever. In the movie there were turbolaser turrets. I don't know what exactly is in the EGtE&T.

Actually, the EGtW&T says that the beams cosist of highly energised PARTICLES. Whatever that would mean to you.

TESB "bursts-without-beams"

And what that ones supposed to mean? Are all particles supposed to be visible?
AOTC ICS
Mind you, they are hard to get in Russia.

what Trek showed you.

I haven't watched anything of Trek except FC and a pair of TNG episodes. It sucked enormously. Neither do I know anything ot Trek, and I don't want to know of it. Ever.

I even did your homework in finding them and linking you to them. You're just lazy, ignorant, and arrogant.

These arguments are disputable, not some sort of rock solid.

most of Mike's pages are horridly out-of-date

Fine then. But he once thought it is a possibility, and so do I.

and the problems with "fuzed energy beams" in the thread I linked for you

I QUOTED Mike (if that Unicron-avatared Lex Animata is him) from the thread you provided, WTF are you smoking!

Any real flak bursts are the culprit of "explosive solids" such as those described in ANH

Explosive solids are not anywhere present in the TIE fighter's guns. And it states that flak exploded. Now, how come it exploded if it's not an explosive solid?

Almost everything in the movies has to be an energy beam.

I say again, "energy" beams are a non-definition. The EGWT you mentioned says they are particles. The AOTC nov. (if I'm not mistaken) says blasters are projectile weapons.

inverse-cubed law

Would it NOT be reasonable to contain a force field, not spread it round so it catched additional hits?
Inverse-cubed law? What does it have to do with such a strange force-field distribution?

READ YOUR SOURCES - AOTC ICS.

ICS are hard to get in Russia. DVDs are easier. What I saw is what I saw. Shield is activated.
Wherever it spread, far or near, or EVERYWHERE, the WEAK blaster bolt did NOT interact with it, it just hit the hull and that's all.

This is the first set of screenies, more to come.

Here you can see two of the many instances where the supposed "volumetric" shield did not react to blasterfire in the slightest:



Here you see the sequence where a destroyed gunship with shields overcome still exhibits the "shield interaction":






Here is Vympel's requested sequence - the destruction of LAAT past landing. The bursts are still there (more to come if you need more):





And, last but not least - no, their shields are UP now:

AOTC novellsation wrote:A hailstorm of laserfire blasted the new arrivals, but the gunships had their shields up, covering the debarkation of their warriors.

The shield is definetely right there with the hull. These 3 screenies are just a small fraction of all blaster shots while the LAATs were still in flight, blasting the droids into oblivion. They hit the hull and deflect with no visible damage. Same as TPM blaster-shield interaction (for which I will try to make screencaps as well).

Screencap 1 for the N-1 shield:

And the Gungan shield:

And here from the EU game Force Commander, the cinematics:

Identical to droideka shields, actually.

And now: the Falcon shielding from the Trilogy.
Did it have no "volumetric" shields in ANH, or what? It's the TIEs first pass, IIRC:

And in ESB:

I say proximity fuse mode.

Sorry for the old SE screenies, the Trilogy DVD is not yet available in Russia.

Now for the AT-AT "shields":

Nice AT-AT shield interaction, isn't it? Except I have never seen AT-AT and snowspeeders claimed to have shields. Maybe I was lazy, but can't recall any sources (definetely no canonical ones) which would support that claim.
It actually had the snowspeeder shoot the beams.

And this "burst-without-bolt" is yet another problem for the beam-shield interaction theory.

There are no other weapons around to fire that flak. Just Falcon and the TIEs. And yet the burst is there, so one would have to admit that it came from the TIEs.
That situation is also present on Hoth:

What hit the AT-AT? There was no "beam" to interact with a non-existant "AT-AT shield', so where did that flak burst come from?

Containment fields operating in VT fuse mode can explain these, the beam-shield interaction - not really, since there is no beam to interact with and most definetely no shield.

My favorite:


So is that the "all-enveloping shield", which managed to catch ONE of the bypassing (!) bolts, but missed the other?
But in other instances near-flying bolts did not "interact" with a "shield" at all:



Unprecise VT fuse barrage makes more sence than a shield which picks out occasional shots from around the ship.

Are you going to read the provided links or not, jackass?

Illuminatus Primus
Those threads (reading currently) have NO extensive visual reference (and the reference they had is mostly lost whatsoever!), neither any extensive novel reference.
What I must point out: I did not say turbolasers are plasma. They are not.

The debate with Xavier wrote:The idea is that shields have no real defined edge, and can "bleed off" energy from passing energy beams, which manifests in flakbursts.

That is the idea discussed here, not whether TLs are plasma or not.

Do you not understand canon heirarchy? The Incredible Cross Sections are even used as sources in producing the films.

That is also a view which was held at that time. But hasn't that changed with Chee's outlined canon policy?

Xavier advocated his TL and blaster theory (liquid containment or something like that); I am yet advocating none, merely arguing that this argument from MacLeod is flawed:

So does the volumetric shield interaction theory Mike proposed insofar as I can tell. And it doesn't require the introduction of more unknowns (Occam's Razor does apply.)
The bolt still can't just "detonate" like a bomb without something triggering it. That's the key point - it NEEDS a mechanism, which introduces an unknown into that theory (unlike, say, Mike's volumetric shield interaction theory - that relies on the known behaviour of force fields as three-dimensional objects, and can be supported by official evidence as well.)

The "behaviour" of shields is induced from the assumption that the movie bolt explosions are shield interaction. Which is circular logic. This logic also must be applied to disregard all contradicting evidence.

While there is obvious contradicting evidence.
And to get to the fact that there are both projectile and beam weapons one must ADMIT that the "laser/blaster" definition is CLEARLY applied to BOTH of them, with no distiction (projectile blasters and lasers cannons are written to emit "laser"/"energy" beams, which is the point).
One also has to admit that the flak argument regarding TIE fighters is flawed, and that the TIE have to be able to shoot projectile-type "lasers".

If we assume that there are beam lasters and projectile lasers, that requires for SW weaponry to be able to emit BOTH types. Both projectiles and beams.

So there is NO contradiction with my claim: that the GUNS posess a VT fuse mode, which is the projectile-firing mode, and ALSO posess an AP mode, which is the energy beam mode. However that may function, it MUST be so.

That is all.

IF the cannons have TWO modes of firing, there is NO NEED in a theory which requires the shields to operate in an exceptionally WEIRD way. Which is shown by the screenshots above.
That makes MacLeod's argument FLAWED, because the existence of projectile weapons called "blasters" and "laser cannons" is the canon evidence. And if the existence of beam weapons called the same is also canon evidence, one should NOT introduce any unknowns, just the projectile and beam firing modes.
And the volumetric shield claim actually ALSO desperately requires THAT to be true (otherwise the blaster hits would nullify it), but once it has admitted that, the theory itself becomes MEANINGLESS and REDUNDANT.
Because projectile lasers produce flak bursts, and if they can, there is no need for "volumetric" shields to explain the bursts.

Lasers cannot spontaneously "explode". They can only interact with a target.

But then, it has been shown that lasers HAVE to be able to fire in projectile mode, thus the need of interaction is nullified.

And last but not least, I haven't seen any of my screenshots in the threads you provided, NEITHER a full reference from novels/scripts/storyboards which is posted here.

NEITHER:
1) the solution of TIE fighter flak problem, which is explicit and requires a projectile mode
2) the solution of AT-AT flak problem, which is explicit, and requires a projectile mode
3) the solution of the LAAT flak problem, which is explicit, and ALSO requires a projectile mode
4) the solution of TPM and AOTC blaster impacts

NONE of the problems which I present with the quotes and the screenshots has been adequately SOLVED in those threads, or was I not looking? No analysis of this evidence was made. Or am I wrong again?

Stas Bush wrote:True. This is why I pose the following questions:
1) what "anti-aircraft turbolasers" are on the TIE fighters.

Their laser cannon, shithead?

Stas Bush wrote:

Han checks as the ship is buffeted by exploding flak.

The ship shudders as flak explodes near the cockpit window.

The ship was beginning to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters.

Out-of-context, shithead. Was this the ISD chase? I won't dispute that ISDs probably mount explosive projectile weapons for PD, but I will dispute that TIEs do. Like an asshole, you cut up not only your canon quotes such that others cannot tell the difference, but you play the snippity game with quoting your opponents. You're a jackass.

Stas Bush wrote:There is NO way getting around those quotes.

Actually there is: You're using them dishonestly.

Stas Bush wrote:As well as no way getting around that:

ESB novellisation wrote:The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts and flak.

What projectiles exactly did the AT-AT posess? I guess the only projectiles it posessed were the "laser" beams, otherwise it's inconsistent, meaningless and directly contradicting the TPM and AOTC novels, which state blasters/laser cannons are projectile weapons.

Which walkers? AT-AT or AT-ST. The AT-ST is awknowledged to fire shell-like weapons; it mounts a concussion grenade launcher.

And what does TPM and AOTC mean by projectile weapons? Do they mean they fire a physical blast of particles (as opposed to the luxons of large weapons emplacements?) or an actual physical shell with fuzes?

I suppose the numerous accounts of laser cannon description with plasma and massless beams sails right over your head as well as the host of EU evidence which reveals that most of the particular weapons in question are emphatically not shell-firing mass drivers. You have to deal with these data by any means necessary before invoking across-the-board fuzed shells (that explode with a fraction of their impact energy and omnidirectionally when exploded early, curiously) that hide somewhere in oft-translucent bolts.

You want to whore "intent"? I think the -intent- of BIG FUCKING BRIGHT BEAMS OF LIGHT speaks more toward the Sci-fi conciet of ENERGY BEAMS than flak 88 shells, shit head.

Stas Bush wrote:Actually the "no bolts" explosions may have occured from the AT-AT firing it's cannons in VT fuse mode. There would be same high-velocity gas projectiles, but not so "energized" as it's visible bolts, invisible. Or just plain forcefield containments fired without Tibanna at all at a high speed. And it would be the flak AT-AT needs so desperately.

Why? We didn't observe any "flak" to have ANY effectiveness at Hoth whatsoever. Most of the little bursts were feet away from the T-47s, and the size of a man's head, and caused zero damaged. Meanwhile the AT-AT guns unleash high-kiloton range yields on the shield generator.

And "moving magnetic bottles" and "fuzed energy bolts" are pure bullshit. They are scientifically horrific.

Stas Bush wrote:Am I reading correct? Intent means nothing? Then why exactly does the Star Destroyer "testicle theory" lie buried beneath the ground? Is it not because of Edlund's quote which shows the clear INTENT of the dome structures? Is it not because of logic?

There is no intrinsic contradiction between canon and the description of the domes as shield generators, it was just a nuissance derived from incredibly poor analysis by WEG. This is why we had to have it retconned in an official source, because while it was derived from poor logic it was not strictly in contradiction with anything. Edland's quote helped us justify our case in house with detractors, but in terms of SoD it means nothing.

Stas Bush wrote:Define. Simply that: define turbolasers. As Mike said on his TL webpage, it's easier to say what the TL's are NOT. "Energy beams"? Yeah? How the fuck are blasters called projectile weapons, and operate on the same principle as the turbolaser? How come?

Obviously these "projectile weapons" refer to a group of weapons which are not most large ship-board weapons, which are pulses on massless beams - AOTC, ESB shots, ROTJ shots - and not many small arms - DC-15 rifle, most small arms and infantry weaponry - countless shots of translucent bolts and EU information describing them essentially as particle beam weapons, probably related to the mechanism of massless beam cannon of larger scale.

There ARE projectile (in the sense of physical shells being fired) blasters, such as the Bowcaster, and many vehicle cannon, such as the AT-TE cannon, and possible the AAT cannon (certainly its foot-mounted shell launchers). But the majority are probably not, and you cannot cast this across the board whereever convienent.

Stas Bush wrote:Far less energy content? Should I be noting that SW weapons have power settings, or is that not obvious enough for you? That "content" isn't a constant for each shot (or each type of shot, if there are fixed values). It's pretty obvious for anyone watching Star Wars.

Ah, so they intentionally dial it down so that the shields are only absorbing a tiny fraction of what they would no a full-hit and are essentially invulnerable to it. AT-ATs dial down to where they have head-sized flak bursts that inflict zero damage? Very useful, that.

And there's still no mechanism.

Stas Bush wrote:Why did the blaster shot hit the shielded fighter. Why did the blasters hit the shielded hulls of LAATs. That is all easily explained if the blasters/turbolasers can operate in a VT fuse mode.

Because volumetric does not mean "has full effects at full distance," dumbass. It means that the effect does somewhat extend outward. A direct hit will not be stopped until it has hit the real intensity of the shield, near the hull.

Translucent energy beams do not have VT fuzes. NO MECHANISM.

Stas Bush wrote:It made sence before for me, actually. Watching Star Wars over and over revealed that it has no sence in it whatsoever.
Watch the gungan shields. And droideka shields.

Just proving you are a dumbass who cannot read his sources.

Look, AOTC ICS says there are volumetric shields whose effects slowly decrease as you move away from the hull, but in stagnation in an atmosphere, they tend to trap a layer of excited air along what appears to be a defined surface.

The AOTC ICS is canon. Need I explain to you that the explanation, if provided in canon, holds, irregardless of your "well it doesn't sit well with me" schtick bullshit. Somehow it sits with the astrophysicist and later by the engineers. So I'll go with that over you.

Stas Bush wrote:Hell no. How did the droideka or gungan shields "dissipate" exactly?

AOTC ICS.

Stas Bush wrote:But to people who watch Star Wars carefully it makes no sence. "Beams" and other projectiles hit shielded ships just near the armor, without any distant "interaction". Shielded ships, not some unshielded piece of junk.

AOTC ICS. Force field physics. Vectors.

Stas Bush wrote:Judging by the AOTC gunship scenes - yes. Explosions TENS of metres away are same as the ones 1-2 metres away.

Yet AOTC ICS would imply that due to the shielding thresholds, obviously upon destruction more energy was absorbed than distantly by bursts which did not even buffet the craft with shock waves.

Stas Bush wrote:And if it does NOT have that dissipation ability, how come the blasts DISSAPPEAR? Huh?

Because this is a commonly observed behavior of some turbolasers. Since they are pulse "riders" on a massless beam, once the beam misses, it is deactivated and the pulse vanishes. Death Star XX-9 turbolaser beams vanish after missing X-Wings.

Stas Bush wrote:Or are blasts which exploded 10 metres away somehow little-powered (so that the "weak" perimeter of the dissipating field could stop it?), but the ones exploding close - high-powered? Would that be the ridiculous case?

No, its not. Turbolasers have been frequently observed such that the visible beam is only a side-effect of a larger phenomenon which we can't see. This interacting with exotic force fields does not disturb me.

Stas Bush wrote:But even that extrapolation does not fit the evidence - handheld weapons strike ships near armor, regardless of the shield and however far it may stretch. Here you have it.

Because the hits are direct, genius. The idea that not all blasters are the same still hasn't sunk in, despite the fact canon itself described outright "projectile" blasters, "particle beam/plasma" blasters, and "massless invisible beam" blasters.

Stas Bush wrote:Yes. Once it even continued flying in the very same direction it was flying. Which would be impossible if it interacted with a shield. While a fuse of a part of the bolt would have no contradictions.

So now there are tandem shells in there which can proximity fuze only one that magically does not disrupt the trajectory of the other despite the fact that a shield will by the sheer force of your ignorance for real-world force fields. Why would you only detonate one?

Stas Bush wrote:Does it? I guess then the capital ship shields are pretty fucked up - they catch beams so far away, but can't stop other beams and fighters from striking it.

Yeah, you don't know any science and haven't bothered to look any of it up yet.

Stas Bush wrote:And how exactly does that ability decrease in AOTC, where same effects are observed 10 metres and 1 metre away from the LAAT?

Yet the energy absorbed was clearly different as described above.

Stas Bush wrote:And, lastly, how come the field interacted with a bolt already PASSED behind the ship, is that not weird?

Sure, but not so weird when we realize that the canon has made it quite clear that the visible bolt is the "tip of the iceburg."

Stas Bush wrote:Define the "energy beams" of SW. They aren't lasers, one for sure, and partly affected by gravity.

Some are physical shells wrapped in a glowing plasma sheath; some are discrete gravity-ignoring particle beam packets; some are invisible massless beams.

And no, they're not affected by gravity; that's one of their fundamental characteristics.

Stas Bush wrote:And what exactly they are?

Links are good for you.

Stas Bush wrote:A pair of "laser" cannons.

Without room for physical shell-firing mechanisms, shitlicker.

Stas Bush wrote:Whatever. In the movie there were turbolaser turrets. I don't know what exactly is in the EGtE&T.

Good for you. Insofar that they do not undermine the meaning of George Lucas' films and screenplays, they are canonical and must be accepted as evidence.

Stas Bush wrote:Actually, the EGtW&T says that the beams cosist of highly energised PARTICLES. Whatever that would mean to you.

Just like the VD for the DC-15 and Jango's pistols. This makes it clear that some weapons are not physical shells and not massless beams. What is your point? Do you like seeing your own text? Does it make you feel warm inside?

Stas Bush wrote:And what that ones supposed to mean? Are all particles supposed to be visible?

I dunno, you harp on the visible bolt a lot before. I guess consistency, along with real-world physics, is not your strong-suit.

Stas Bush wrote:AOTC ICS
Mind you, they are hard to get in Russia.

I don't give a shit. You contact someone and ask for quotes relevent to a thesis before hand then. You do not expect others to do your homework for you.

Stas Bush wrote:I haven't watched anything of Trek except FC and a pair of TNG episodes. It sucked enormously. Neither do I know anything ot Trek, and I don't want to know of it. Ever.

Well you seem rather taken by the Trek "colored-bubble" school of force fields.

Stas Bush wrote:These arguments are disputable, not some sort of rock solid.

Surprise! You did not dispute them. Almost every point you have made has been reviewed before, and nearly every screenshot as well.

Stas Bush wrote:Fine then. But he once thought it is a possibility, and so do I.

Set up a PayPal account. I want to give you five bucks to go buy a cookie.

Stas Bush wrote:I QUOTED Mike (if that Unicron-avatared Lex Animata is him) from the thread you provided, WTF are you smoking!

Darth Wong wrote:You must be talking to someone else. I don't buy into the idea of self-bursting lasers, turbolasers, or blasters. The idea that they're just near-misses which interact with forcefields is not perfect but it doesn't create as many problems.

Darth Wong wrote:SW obviously has advanced technology, but I reiterate that it's much easier to accept a technological device which projects some kind of laser-deflecting forcefield (since we really have no choice, given the observed behaviour of shields) than a group of photons spontaneously bursting in vacuum.

Darth Wong wrote:Read more carefully. The fact that some weapons might fire physical projectiles doesn't mean that they all do.

Darth Wong wrote:The question is how large the volumetric shield effect is. Most forcefields in real life do not actually have a boundary; they usually extend into infinity, dropping off in strength with the square of distance. Depending on the interaction of forcefield geometry, vector effects, and incoming bolts, the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship. The bolt that hit the Tantive IV, for example, would have harmlessly passed by it if its shields had a clearly defined outer boundary, since there would be no reason to make this boundary larger than the ship itself.

Pardonnez moi. I meant "inverse squared" not "inverse cubed."

Darth Wong wrote:It doesn't need to, since the interactions are still close enough to the Falcon to be potentially explained by oddball volumetric vector interactions. No one said any of this was perfect, but it's easier to explain flakbursts than to explain "decaying contaiment field" bolts flying off into space and never bursting.

The net effect of quoting Mike that one time and missing all of these is that you are either illiterate or dishonest. Your choice.

Stas Bush wrote:Explosive solids are not anywhere present in the TIE fighter's guns. And it states that flak exploded. Now, how come it exploded if it's not an explosive solid?

Either the exploding is refering to the energy emissions of the shield interactions or we may be talking about dedicated flak weapons on atypical TIEs or the Star Destroyer. The key point is that the energy beams do not have a mechanism to flakburst and it makes no sense for them to do so. But I'm not sure about TIEs since your quoting is so snippity.

Stas Bush wrote:I say again, "energy" beams are a non-definition. The EGWT you mentioned says they are particles. The AOTC nov. (if I'm not mistaken) says blasters are projectile weapons.

Not everyone grossly overgeneralizes each description. We attempt harmonization.

Stas Bush wrote:Would it NOT be reasonable to contain a force field, not spread it round so it catched additional hits?

Star Trek force field school strikes again.

Stas Bush wrote:What does it have to do with such a strange force-field distribution?

Inverse squared governs real world force fields, and it is not unreasonable to associate such effects with SW force field effects like shields.

Stas Bush wrote: ICS are hard to get in Russia. DVDs are easier. What I saw is what I saw. Shield is activated.
Wherever it spread, far or near, or EVERYWHERE, the WEAK blaster bolt did NOT interact with it, it just hit the hull and that's all.

Then you're not doing your homework and leaving out evidence. Not my problem. Yours.

Stas Bush wrote:[snip]

In other words, you totally ignored the thread I forwarded you. And no, I haven't provided evidence, because you are not factually wrong, but logically wrong.

"Bolt/shield interactions" explain effects easier with known terms like shield interactions - you invoke silly shit like energy beams magically blowing up in violation of the Conservation of Energy and the Conservation of Momentum.

And why do some bolts just keep sailing past?

A bolt exploding does not need to violate CoE or CoM. Bolts obviously have a lot of potential energy, so CoE isn't a problem -- and we never see a flak burst from directly in front, so there's no reason to suppose that this explosion is isotropic, so it can balance momentum too.

Illuminatus Primus

Their laser cannon, shithead?

Since when are fighter cannons referred to as flak? You are ignoring the argument.

Out-of-context, shithead. Was this the ISD chase?

Yes, there are script misquotes, from the ISD chase. Sorry.
Shit, I admit I'm a jackass. Shit shit shit.
But that is TIE fighters' flak, not ISD flak.
Explicitly:

blasted at it by the fighters

.
Do a "by the fighters" search. You'll find a plenty in the novellisation. As those:

It was all but impossible to carry out the delicate repair work necessary while the Falcon shook with each blast of flak from the fighters.

Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE fighters

Chewbacca's seat and helped Lando as they flew the Falcon through the exploding flak.

Like an asshole, you cut up not only your canon quotes such that others cannot tell the difference, but you play the snippity game with quoting your opponents.

I am SORRY for the script misquotes. I'm removing those and making a proper reference now.

Which walkers? AT-AT or AT-ST.

AT-AT.

The AT-ST is awknowledged to fire shell-like weapons; it mounts a concussion grenade launcher.

The AT-ST is not anywhere in the script or the novel.

Explosions rocked Luke's ship, tossing it
about violently in the enveloping flak.
Through the window he could see another
walker that appeared to be unaffected by
the full fire power of the Rebel attack
speeders. This lumbering machine now
became Luke's target as he flew, moving in
a descending arc. The walker was firing
directly at him, creating a wall of laser
bolts and flak.
'Just hang on, Dack,' he yelled over the
explosions, 'and get ready to fire that
tow cable!'

I'm sorry for previous misquotes, but you won't get me on this one.

Do they mean they fire a physical blast of particles (as opposed to the luxons of large weapons emplacements?) or an actual physical shell with fuzes?

So you haven't even READ the novellisation references to the projectiles? Blast of particles? Massless lightspeed particles, am I reading correct what you mean by this?
Nop; you yourself have stated that the TPM tanks fired projectiles, and there is evidence; the novellisation calls them "laser cannons", and implies "energy" shots.

laser cannon description with plasma

Plasma was refuted by Mike; even in the very threads you provided. Or am I wrong again?

and massless beams sails right over your head

IT DOESN'T. But it's obvious that there is canon projectile reference, and thus there MUST be projectile weapons of that sort.

speaks more toward the Sci-fi conciet of ENERGY BEAMS than flak 88 shells

Does it? Why the Falcon's cockpit is a bomber cockpit? Why are so many references to WWII in SW? Why are radar domes on top of the SD placed like on WWII warships? Man, I'm not saying intent is everything; but the fact is the "BEAMS" are called lasers, but they are NOT. It's obvious.

We didn't observe any "flak" to have ANY effectiveness at Hoth whatsoever.

What ARE you smoking? Flak was effective on Hoth.

Desperately, Luke works the controls of his flak-buffeted ship.

That is not enough?

Meanwhile the AT-AT guns unleash high-kiloton range yields on the shield generator.

SHOULD I AGAIN point it out that the AT-AT shot at the generator is a charged full-powered shot, while ORDINARY shots from AT-AT are FUCKING PUNY.

And "moving magnetic bottles" and "fuzed energy bolts" are pure bullshit.

As well as SHIELDS around EXPLODED craft!

Edland's quote helped us justify our case in house with detractors, but in terms of SoD it means nothing.

So the ISD has testicles after all?

it retconned in an official source

I always thought Edlund knew more than "official" sources, people who write the SSD is 8 kms...

which are pulses on massless beams - AOTC, ESB shots, ROTJ shots

Pulses on massless beams? What is the speed of the beam propagation?

And, I have to say, that AOTC lasers are NOT ship cannons. Ground laser cannons.

such as the Bowcaster

Some sources refer to it as to a blaster. Thus there are projectile blasters.

such as the AT-TE cannon, and possible the AAT cannon (certainly its foot-mounted shell launchers).

Did you just READ the quote I provided? AAT cannon IS projectile.

AT-ATs dial down to where they have head-sized flak bursts that inflict zero damage? Very useful, that.

WTF are they "head-sized"? Did you just measure the distance to the burst from Luke's cockpit, or WHAT?

Because volumetric does not mean "has full effects at full distance," dumbass.

It's not ME dumbass. FULL distance? Fuck; NO distance to the hull. NO.

A direct hit will not be stopped until it has hit the real intensity of the shield, near the hull.

Yes? And where does that come from?

until it has hit the real intensity of the shield, near the hull

WHY. Just WHY. If a bolt is going to MISS the craft, the shield reacts with FULL effects (thus the beam nullified in a "flak" explosion). If a bolt goes STRAIGHT for the craft, the shield does NOT nullify it on the same distance.
That's really weird.

Translucent energy beams do not have VT fuzes. NO MECHANISM.

ENERGY BEAMS HAVE NO FUSE, for George's sake, but PROJECTILEs do, and THAT is what I am saying.

whose effects slowly decrease as you move away from the hull

YES? DECREASES? Fuck! They cannot stop a fucking blaster going STRAIGHT for the hull, but yet catch FIGHTER's laser cannons METRES away?
That is bullshit, unless the shields are absolutely weird.

AOTC ICS. Force field physics. Vectors.

So if a vector is a miss, then the field reacts. If the vector is a hit, it waits till the shot comes near the hull. Please. Spare my brains.

obviously upon destruction more energy was absorbed than distantly by bursts which did not even buffet the craft with shock waves

What does THAT mean? I'm asking you WHY the same effect is observed on DIFFERENT distances, not what explosion will cause the most damage.

Since they are pulse "riders" on a massless beam, once the beam misses, it is deactivated and the pulse vanishes.

Those lasers were flying AFTER they missed as good as before.
So WHY do they EXPLODE? I'm not talking about dissipationm The blast at 10 m explodes SAME as the blask 2 m. THe blast 100 m explodes same as 50 m in the Trilogy.

Turbolasers have been frequently observed

I was INITIALLY not speaking of TLs, and yet the word frequently is not "always", and there

side-effect of a larger phenomenon which we can't see

Is that INVISIBLE beam heading in the same direction as the tracer? OBVIOUSLY IT DOES. So WHY do they explode? You have NOT answered the question; the disspating force field does not answer it in ANY way!

Because the hits are direct, genius.

I guess that "direct" hits are NOT subject to force-fields?

The idea that not all blasters are the same still hasn't sunk in

It's OBVIOUS, and TRUE.
And it's rather MODES of weapon function rather than the weapons ITSELF.

So now there are tandem shells in there which can proximity fuze only one that magically does not disrupt the trajectory

Why would you only detonate one?

Because it's PARTIAL detonation, and who said that the beams are UNIFORM, they are PULSING, aren't they?
WHY did only one of the two beams fired by the TIE detonate? Obviously because only THIS fuze detonated.

Yeah, you don't know any science and haven't bothered to look any of it up yet.

OK. Conceeded or what? "Science" has NOTHING to do with shield idiocy.

Yet the energy absorbed was clearly different as described above.

So where did that energy go? And why, tell me, why are those beams so fucked up, exploding even from a minor touch of a disspating border of a forcefield!

Sure, but not so weird when we realize that the canon has made it quite clear that the visible bolt is the "tip of the iceburg."

Yes. Except the interaction was with the VISIBLE tracer, not with an invisible beam AFTER it, which would make sence for your claim.

Without room for physical shell-firing mechanisms, shitlicker.

Shitlicker? CHECK the novellisation, rather than some "arguments".
LASER CANNONS fire projectiles. And TIES fire FLAK, you are IGNORANT.

Insofar that they do not undermine the meaning of George Lucas' films and screenplays

Insofar they fuck up with evidence, they are no longer.

This makes it clear that some weapons are not physical shells and not massless beams.

I HAVE NOT argued the opposite. "Some" weapons claim is what I don't understand. The evidence points toward at least TWO firing modes.

I dunno, you harp on the visible bolt a lot before

I don't really care for the visible bolt. The question is do CANNONS emit PROJECTILES (and energy beams can be as well emited). ALL.

and nearly every screenshot as well.

NO. I haven't seen MOST of my screenshots there. At least on the threads and pages you provided and further.

The net effect of quoting Mike that one time and missing all of these is that you are either illiterate or dishonest.

I'm NOT dishonest. I pointed the PROBLEM with all arguments on that page. The assumption and circular logic are STUNNING.

We attempt harmonization.

So do I. If I see a weapon capable of projectile and beam firing I do not INVENT lousy shield-interaction!

like energy beams magically blowing up in violation of the Conservation of Energy and the Conservation of Momentum.

PROJECTILES. GODDAMIT.

And why do some bolts just keep sailing past?

Yes, WHY. The inaccurate fuse? Or the INACCURATE force-field? Shit, I take the first.

Stas Bush wrote:I am SORRY for the script misquotes. I'm removing those and making a proper reference now.

Its not MISQUOTING. The point is you quote tiny bits of post - any which contain the word "flak" - but with little or no clue when this is happening in the novelisation or by what weapons.

Stas Bush wrote:The AT-ST is not anywhere in the script or the novel.

So, it was there in the film. You cannot use out-of-universe things like publishing dates to obfuscate the point. There were also AT-AA walkers further behind which are armed with "flak pods" and AT-AR walkers as well.

Stas Bush wrote:I'm sorry for previous misquotes, but you won't get me on this one.

Stas Bush wrote:So you haven't even READ the novellisation references to the projectiles? Blast of particles? Massless lightspeed particles, am I reading correct what you mean by this?

Look moron, anyone who check SW ICS can see that the AT-ATs do not mount projectile cannon. Anyone who checks a screen shot will see translucent bolts WITH NO FUCKING SHELL IN THEM. TRANSLUCENT ENERGY BEAMS DO NOT HAVE "VT" FUZES, FUCKMOOK.

Stas Bush wrote:Nop; you yourself have stated that the TPM tanks fired projectiles, and there is evidence; the novellisation calls them "laser cannons", and implies "energy" shots.

Which if necessary are overriden by the canon film, which shows what might be debris falling away from shield impacts.

Stas Bush wrote:Plasma was refuted by Mike; even in the very threads you provided. Or am I wrong again?

Self-contained blobs of RL plasma are unworkable. However, there is plasma involved in the VD-described weapons' mechanism - possibly a precursor to the particle beam they emit which ignores gravity and drag.

Stas Bush wrote:IT DOESN'T. But it's obvious that there is canon projectile reference, and thus there MUST be projectile weapons of that sort.

AND THERE'S CANON EVIDENCE THAT TIE FIGHTERS AND AT-ATs DO NOT HAVE PROJECTILE CANNONS. LIVE WITH IT.

Stas Bush wrote:Does it? Why the Falcon's cockpit is a bomber cockpit? Why are so many references to WWII in SW? Why are radar domes on top of the SD placed like on WWII warships? Man, I'm not saying intent is everything; but the fact is the "BEAMS" are called lasers, but they are NOT. It's obvious.

You're a fucking imbecile. Because there's WW2 references the intent is for them to be shell-tracers, and not energy beams? No honest person can look at Star Wars and conclude that those are not supposed to be energy beams. You're a dishonest fuck.

Stas Bush wrote:What ARE you smoking? Flak was effective on Hoth.

No, idiot, I'm not talking about novelisation "flak."



Well damn, what the fuck is this so-called "flak" any good against AT-ATs? You have a tiny blip with NO ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS, Y'KNOW, THE KIND YOU GET WITH EXPLOSIONS?

Flak is not flak shot at slow armored vehicles. Again, your idiot theory falls apart, because no one with a brain would proximity fuze tiny warheads against AT-ATs. And second, the Snowspeeders' blaster bolts follow the path of the vehicle - they do not trail behind, so they must be "pulses along an invisible beam" - not shells.

Stas Bush wrote:

Desperately, Luke works the controls of his flak-buffeted ship.

That is not enough?

Well moron, I'm contesting these pathetic blips that cause no blast effects like your own novelization says so.

AT-AT guns fire flak?



Where's that shell in that translucent bolt, huh?

Stas Bush wrote:SHOULD I AGAIN point it out that the AT-AT shot at the generator is a charged full-powered shot, while ORDINARY shots from AT-AT are FUCKING PUNY.

So what? They don't cause the blast effects described in the novelisation - making them useless - and

Stas Bush wrote:As well as SHIELDS around EXPLODED craft!

Why not? The ship is on-fire and terminally damaged, yes, but shield technology is robust (it must be to deal with momentum), and the system may still be active, although its obviously not absorbing any energy. The structural integrity of the ship is not yet compromised, the hull has generally maintained form.

By the way, the "but you too!" tactic is called Tu Quoque and its a fallacy, dipshit. Remarks like that do not vindicate revealed holes in your theory.

Stas Bush wrote:So the ISD has testicles after all?

Did you read any of what I said?

Stas Bush wrote:I always thought Edlund knew more than "official" sources, people who write the SSD is 8 kms... ]

You understand neither analysis nor science.

What the fuck is Edlund under Suspension of Disbelief? The Executor chief engineer, numbnuts? What is so hard to explain that high canon (canon is published information, by the way) was not direct contradicting the shield generators. The Executor was never 8 km, because this is irreconcilable with the objective filmic content.

Stas Bush wrote:Pulses on massless beams? What is the speed of the beam propagation?

Massless particles must travel at c. They travel at lightspeed.

Hint: Do not fucking dare start arguing this with me. This has been debated SO MANY TIMES it is scarcely countable, and I'm not going to sit and educate your because you're fucking dumb to use the the Search function. Quite frankly its almost trolling, since in the "Common Star Wars topics (Please check before posting)" [< operative clause highlighted, numbnuts] there is a "One of the many many many what are blasters/turbolasers etc discussions" thread.

DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK.

Stas Bush wrote:And, I have to say, that AOTC lasers are NOT ship cannons. Ground laser cannons.

Well the bolts look rather long, thin, and translucent to have shells in them, and better yet, tandem shells make no fucking sense. If they were simply AA bursters, they wouldn't keep going through the flak burst, dipshit.

Stas Bush wrote:Some sources refer to it as to a blaster. Thus there are projectile blasters.

No fucking shit, I just said that, you imbecile.

Stas Bush wrote:Did you just READ the quote I provided? AAT cannon IS projectile.

You didn't quote, idiot. "Energy shots" and "laser cannon" are not offering evidence.

Stas Bush wrote:WTF are they "head-sized"? Did you just measure the distance to the burst from Luke's cockpit, or WHAT?

No, during the approach of the Snowspeeders, tiny "flak bursts" (with NO SHELL OR BOLT) about the size of a pilot's head or torso bracketed the speeder with zero blast effects.

Stas Bush wrote:It's not ME dumbass. FULL distance? Fuck; NO distance to the hull. NO.

Did you get your ruler and measure it? And besides, canon has already stated shields can be only microscopic distances from the hull and some even say shields can permeate the hull.

Connor has stated this several times, I'm sure of it. Maybe that Search button might be handy?

Stas Bush wrote:Yes? And where does that come from?

Mike suggested it was explained by vector interactions with force fields. I'm sure you know better though.

Stas Bush wrote:WHY. Just WHY. If a bolt is going to MISS the craft, the shield reacts with FULL effects (thus the beam nullified in a "flak" explosion). If a bolt goes STRAIGHT for the craft, the shield does NOT nullify it on the same distance. That's really weird.

The engineer thinks its plausible but the clueless fuck who doesn't know a thing about force fields and turns cross-eyed when the words "inverse square law" are spoken knows better. Right.

Stas Bush wrote:ENERGY BEAMS HAVE NO FUSE, for George's sake, but PROJECTILEs do, and THAT is what I am saying.

THEY ARE TRANSLUCENT, DIPSHIT.

TIE AND AT-AT LASERS DO NOT HAVE PROJECTILE FIRING MECHANISMS.

These craft quite simply do not fire projectiles from their main guns, as much as you'll kick and scream. The facts are stubborn.

Stas Bush wrote:YES? DECREASES? Fuck! They cannot stop a fucking blaster going STRAIGHT for the hull, but yet catch FIGHTER's laser cannons METRES away?

And the blaster bolts weren't stopped? Proof? You made preconceived assumptions about shield dynamics and you refuse to cope now that they have been debunked. Live with it.

Stas Bush wrote:That is bullshit, unless the shields are absolutely weird.

Or unless you are clueless.

Stas Bush wrote:So if a vector is a miss, then the field reacts. If the vector is a hit, it waits till the shot comes near the hull. Please. Spare my brains.

Mike Wong, The Engineer Who Knows Less Than Stas Bush wrote:The question is how large the volumetric shield effect is. Most forcefields in real life do not actually have a boundary; they usually extend into infinity, dropping off in strength with the square of distance. Depending on the interaction of forcefield geometry, vector effects, and incoming bolts, the results could theoretically be somewhat unpredictable, particularly at greater distances from the ship. The bolt that hit the Tantive IV, for example, would have harmlessly passed by it if its shields had a clearly defined outer boundary, since there would be no reason to make this boundary larger than the ship itself. [bolded to prevent reading incomprehension]

Stas Bush wrote:What does THAT mean? I'm asking you WHY the same effect is observed on DIFFERENT distances, not what explosion will cause the most damage.

Because the visible effects are the "tip of the iceburg." Notice that we don't see gigatons of absorbed fire being reradiated from the ship hull?

Stas Bush wrote:Those lasers were flying AFTER they missed as good as before.
So WHY do they EXPLODE? I'm not talking about dissipationm The blast at 10 m explodes SAME as the blask 2 m. THe blast 100 m explodes same as 50 m in the Trilogy.

Because the force field disrupts the beam and shunts some of its energy into visible light which we see as these flashes.

As for the LAAT scene, it is hypothesized that the energy releases on Geonosis interacted with the atmosphere and caused chemical reactions, producing gas and smoke.

Stas Bush wrote:Is that INVISIBLE beam heading in the same direction as the tracer? OBVIOUSLY IT DOES. So WHY do they explode? You have NOT answered the question; the disspating force field does not answer it in ANY way!

Because the beam is interacting with the force field and these energy loss as waste EM, idiot. This was obvious to everyone else arguing the theory.

Stas Bush wrote:I guess that "direct" hits are NOT subject to force-fields?

No, different vectors interact differently.

Stas Bush wrote: It's OBVIOUS, and TRUE.
And it's rather MODES of weapon function rather than the weapons ITSELF.

What a moron. So a particle beam cannon can shoot proximity-fuzed shells in a pinch? Shoot luxon beams too?

Stas Bush wrote:Because it's PARTIAL detonation, and who said that the beams are UNIFORM, they are PULSING, aren't they?

Look, it is a projectile then the fuze detonates it or it does not. There is no mechanism for an energy beam to "partially explode" aside from interaction with deflector shields. Make your choice. Beams continuing through detonations are totally irreconcilable with intentional flak bursting.

Stas Bush wrote:WHY did only one of the two beams fired by the TIE detonate? Obviously because only THIS fuze detonated.

Nice to know the Empire has poorer technology than we do.

Stas Bush wrote:OK. Conceeded or what? "Science" has NOTHING to do with shield idiocy.

Oh yeah, if they behave at all like real world force fields, than its idiocy. Science is kind of important in the analysis we do here, even if apparently the much-vaunted European education system did not apparently do much better for you than it does for the average American vis-a-vis science.

Stas Bush wrote:So where did that energy go? And why, tell me, why are those beams so fucked up, exploding even from a minor touch of a disspating border of a forcefield!

Where all the energy goes - to heat sinks and radiators. Why don't you check out the thread on this very subject on this page, numbnuts? Where did you think gigaton-yield absorbed fire went? Do Star Destroyers glow white? Are they dissipating it directly?

Because that's what the theory supposes, that the possibly TJ yield beams lose some energy in the form of EM radiation when interacting with shields (its obviously useful if deflector shields dissipate energy from incoming beams).

Stas Bush wrote:Yes. Except the interaction was with the VISIBLE tracer, not with an invisible beam AFTER it, which would make sence for your claim.

The invisible beam is both co-incident and before and after the bolt; the bolt rides the beam which is constant until the bolt meets the target - when the power ramps up to full.

Stas Bush wrote:Shitlicker? CHECK the novellisation, rather than some "arguments". LASER CANNONS fire projectiles. And TIES fire FLAK, you are IGNORANT.

Well your film canon beams are translucent and devoid of shells. Sorry, dumbass.

And "ignorant" is not a noun. Though its ironic Mr. I'll Get On My Soapbox And Make A Speech Without Using The Search Function Or Having Any Of The Cited Sources Thereof.

Stas Bush wrote:Insofar they fuck up with evidence, they are no longer.

Wrong. Its funny to see you flounder and try to toss out canon though. Poor baby.

Stas Bush wrote:I HAVE NOT argued the opposite. "Some" weapons claim is what I don't understand. The evidence points toward at least TWO firing modes.

The same weapon cannot fire cloaked proximity-fuzed shells which look like translucent energy beams and translucent energy beams. The TIE cannon structure has been revealed and it is not consistent with projectile fire.

Stas Bush wrote:I don't really care for the visible bolt. The question is do CANNONS emit PROJECTILES (and energy beams can be as well emited). ALL.

You're the only person I have ever argued with who thought that something like a laser cannon could double as shell-firing artillery piece.

Stas Bush wrote:NO. I haven't seen MOST of my screenshots there. At least on the threads and pages you provided and further.

Maybe you should do your own search then, dumbass. I'm not here to do your homework for you.

Stas Bush wrote:I'm NOT dishonest. I pointed the PROBLEM with all arguments on that page. The assumption and circular logic are STUNNING.

We're not proving the existance of shields by assuming shields cause the effect. That would be circular logic. You just don't know what circular logic is.

Stas Bush wrote:So do I. If I see a weapon capable of projectile and beam firing I do not INVENT lousy shield-interaction!

What is the splintering TL blast? Shield interaction is a fact of filmic canon. Magic cannon which can fire shells and energy beams at will is not. I can't believe there exists anyone stupid enough to suggest such a thing.

Stas Bush wrote:PROJECTILES. GODDAMIT.

Why do projectiles traveling at speed blow up asymmetrically? Why do the same weapons which fire kiloton range blasts also have tiny man-sized "flak bursts" which have no blast-effects?

I like how you ignore the incovienent part of a sentence and just keep yapping.

Stas Bush wrote:Yes, WHY. The inaccurate fuse? Or the INACCURATE force-field? Shit, I take the first.

Well sure, you think the Empire has poorer manufacturing quality standards than we do, and that vector mechanics are a poor choice.

Take a physics class and spend a week with the search function, moron.