StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm sure we've all seen them. My question is about specific portions of the trailer. Namely, the size and power of the explosions witnessed. We see Clone Troopers being blasted away by enemy gun emplacements scoring hits on or near their own turrets.

Honestly, these explosions don't look very impressive. I mean, Star Wars ships dish out firepower in the triple digit gigtaon/single digit teraton yields, right? The observed explosions don't look anything like what one would expect from even kiloton yield energy releases, never mind gigaton explosions. Frankly, the blasts really don't look that much more impressive than ones I've seen in WW2 footage.

Why is that? Where does all this enormous energy potential disappear to? If these guns aren't the high yields commonly referred to, how the hell can they reasonably expect to hurt starships durable enough to withstand gigaton blasts, even for short periods of time?

Um, weapons scale? Hello?

Not every gun on a ship is a HTL, you know...

Answer.

Lets wait for the damn MOVIE so we can see stuff like context before we really get into the work of analysing.

Chris has a point, and there is a thing called variable yields.No reason to use 5000TT on a thing that can't take a third.

Also given you have yet to do shit for scaling...visuals aren't always what they appear to be.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Um, weapons scale? Hello?

Not every gun on a ship is a HTL, you know...

No shit Sherlock. But the explosions as seen so far would be the equivalent of a BB shooter on a M1A1 Abram battle tank...

Chris OFarrell wrote:Answer.

Lets wait for the damn MOVIE so we can see stuff like context before we really get into the work of analysing.

I assumed the trailer provided enough visual evidence to work with, but if you disagree, I regress.

Ghost Rider wrote:Chris has a point, and there is a thing called variable yields.No reason to use 5000TT on a thing that can't take a third.

True, but there's my BB gun on a M1A1 Abram battle tank example.

Also given you have yet to do shit for scaling...visuals aren't always what they appear to be.

As I replied to Chris, I assumed there was enough visual evidence to work with.

As to your "scaling" complaint, I was under the impression an individual can suggest a fire cracker explosion is not quite a megaton yield explosion without having to "prove it" with mathematical calculations.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:Chris has a point, and there is a thing called variable yields.No reason to use 5000TT on a thing that can't take a third.

True, but there's my BB gun on a M1A1 Abram battle tank example.

Gotcha...because you know exactly that eyes tell yield and not scaling and realizing the other material is not steel.

At this, I should look at FC and go "That was it?..."

You grasp not shoving foot into mouth?

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote: Also given you have yet to do shit for scaling...visuals aren't always what they appear to be.

As I replied to Chris, I assumed there was enough visual evidence to work with.

As to your "scaling" complaint, I was under the impression an individual can suggest a fire cracker explosion is not quite a megaton yield explosion without having to "prove it" with mathematical calculations.

Right, because SIZE doesn't matter.

Thank you for proving again how little goes in your head when you open your mouth.

Ghost Rider wrote:

True, but there's my BB gun on a M1A1 Abram battle tank example.

Gotcha...because you know exactly that eyes tell yield and not scaling and realizing the other material is not steel.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously going to tell me those explosions are anything we'd rationally expect from weaponry even in the kiloton range? There's fireballs (indicating atmosphere to feed it), but there's no atmospheric pressure wave one would expect from high yield explosions.

And again, these ships can withstand attacks by gigaton/teraton yields, right? So why would such vastly inferior yields be fired, or be expected to have virtually any effect?

At this, I should look at FC and go "That was it?..."

*sigh* Any reason you're bringing up Star Trek in the PSW forum?

You grasp not shoving foot into mouth?

Come on...the medium guns on a assault transport yield at least 200 gigatons, with HTL turrets ranging in teratons, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "light" guns should be at least several hundred megatons in yield?

And why the heck would these weapons be dialed down in a full combat situation where the objective is to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible?

As I replied to Chris, I assumed there was enough visual evidence to work with.

As to your "scaling" complaint, I was under the impression an individual can suggest a fire cracker explosion is not quite a megaton yield explosion without having to "prove it" with mathematical calculations.

Right, because SIZE doesn't matter.

Strange, I was under the impression fireballs and effects of weapons was very telling of their power.

Thank you for proving again how little goes in your head when you open your mouth.

I'm not really interested in getting into a flamefest with you GR. If you really take offense to my questions, by all means continue with the insults and I'll take that as a "Not interested in discussing said topic with you in any productive manner" and I'll ignore you accordingly.

I'm interested in civilized discussion about a particular topic, not getting flamed by those who've taken a personal dislike to me.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

True, but there's my BB gun on a M1A1 Abram battle tank example.

Gotcha...because you know exactly that eyes tell yield and not scaling and realizing the other material is not steel.

Oh, come on. Are you seriously going to tell me those explosions are anything we'd rationally expect from weaponry even in the kiloton range? There's fireballs (indicating atmosphere to feed it), but there's no atmospheric pressure wave one would expect from high yield explosions.

And again, these ships can withstand attacks by gigaton/teraton yields, right? So why would such vastly inferior yields be fired, or be expected to have virtually any effect?

I see so you have done the scaling or are you just blithering from your impressions?

If so, put up or shut up.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote: At this, I should look at FC and go "That was it?..."

*sigh* Any reason you're bringing up Star Trek in the PSW forum?

I see you and analogy get along like you and logic.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote: You grasp not shoving foot into mouth?

Come on...the medium guns on a assault transport yield at least 200 gigatons, with HTL turrets ranging in teratons, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "light" guns should be at least several hundred megatons in yield?

And why the heck would these weapons be dialed down in a full combat situation where the objective is to destroy the enemy as quickly as possible?

Nice to see you don't even grasp that PD guns are rated at 6 MT but hey, you thinking they should be hundreds of MTs.

And if you don't grasp why you dial down guns in a situation where it's close quarters and stray shots could destroy hundreds to thousands of civilans, I guess this amply demonstrates your stupidtity again.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Robert Walper wrote: As I replied to Chris, I assumed there was enough visual evidence to work with.

As to your "scaling" complaint, I was under the impression an individual can suggest a fire cracker explosion is not quite a megaton yield explosion without having to "prove it" with mathematical calculations.

Right, because SIZE doesn't matter.

Strange, I was under the impression fireballs and effects of weapons was very telling of their power.

Nice to see you using buzzwords and not understand what makes a fireball or what is an effect dumbass.

Robert Walper wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote: Thank you for proving again how little goes in your head when you open your mouth.

I'm not really interested in getting into a flamefest with you GR. If you really take offense to my questions, by all means continue with the insults and I'll take that as a "Not interested in discussing said topic with you in any productive manner" and I'll ignore you accordingly.

I'm interested in civilized discussion about a particular topic, not getting flamed by those who've taken a personal dislike to me.

Then stop being an moronic retard and grasp high school fucking physics you fucking idiot.

Ghost Rider wrote:Chris has a point, and there is a thing called variable yields.No reason to use 5000TT on a thing that can't take a third.

Also given you have yet to do shit for scaling...visuals aren't always what they appear to be.

My likely explaination (assuming the explosions are the resut of weapon hits and not 'exploding bridge consols' sumsuch), the excess was absorbed by the shields. The part that 'leaked' through is what we see causing the explosions.

Jesus, do we have to get so inflammatory?

Besides, didn't SW's gigaton weapons yield focus more on the penetrative force rather than the explosive force? So a gigaton weapon hitting dirt would make a bigass hole and maybe an explosion, but not a giant ass mushroom cloud. And a GT weapon hitting superdupersteel would not make a bigass hole, but perhaps make an explosion, but not a giant ass mushroom cloud. Right?

For those that went through the trailer slowly, watch for example the bolt that hits the Separatist deck gun frame by frame on Quicktime. The whole thing. You can see a "glow" around the ring of the "window". That's a shield- it also appears to temporarily disappear as the Seperatist gun fires as the Separatist gun fires earlier in the trailer. The blue flash as the bolt strikes looks like a shield failure.

I just know the Trekkies are going to be gloating about how it'll override the ICS and other bullshit.

I'm tired of Trekkie morons such as Walper pretending that you can somehow pretend things like seismic charges and Death Stars don't exist by trying to interpret other events to suit a preferred conclusion. The whole concept of respecting the totality of evidence just doesn't seem to occur to these fucktards, for whom RSA appears to be their Pope.

Crown wrote:My likely explaination (assuming the explosions are the resut of weapon hits and not 'exploding bridge consols' sumsuch), the excess was absorbed by the shields. The part that 'leaked' through is what we see causing the explosions.

How do you even know that the bolt was the cause of the explosion? The blast seen in the trailer could easily have been caused by an internal explosion, following the failure of internal systems. You can then go back and tie the ORIGINAL damage done to the bolt, without the explosion having anything to do with the power of the original weapon.

Does one look at the exploding consoles in Star Trek and conclude that their ship-to-ship weapons hit with less force than a hand-grenade?

Darth Wong wrote:I'm tired of Trekkie morons such as Walper pretending that you can somehow pretend things like seismic charges and Death Stars don't exist by trying to interpret other events to suit a preferred conclusion. The whole concept of respecting the totality of evidence just doesn't seem to occur to these fucktards, for whom RSA appears to be their Pope.

*sigh* And just what conclusions have I been stating here? I asked a simple question in regards to visual evidence (as limited as it may be at the moment).

Robert Walper wrote:Oh, come on. Are you seriously going to tell me those explosions are anything we'd rationally expect from weaponry even in the kiloton range? There's fireballs (indicating atmosphere to feed it), but there's no atmospheric pressure wave one would expect from high yield explosions.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are ALWAYS fireballs when ever TLs hit a ship in SW, even in deep space.

Come on...the medium guns on a assault transport yield at least 200 gigatons, with HTL turrets ranging in teratons, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong, but "light" guns should be at least several hundred megatons in yield?

SIX megatons for the light guns on the Acclamator according to AOTC: ICS.

Pardon my ignorance, but is there an altitude estimate for the main chunk of the Battle of Coruscant? If so, what kind of atmospheric pressure would they be dealing with?

Also, wasn't there a quote from the novelization or the ICS that the battle took place "between the atmosphere and the shield" or something to that effect?

Walper appears to be thinking of explosive effects at sea level. The thinner the atmosphere is, the smaller the explosions would be, correct?

We do have to take into account that deep space battles in Wars have included explosions that slowed down like they would in atmosphere (the ISD exploding in the background of RotJ) and flames (the Executor's defeat and one TIE fighter in the Battle of Endor), so the presense of explosions like that isn't an indicator of pressure, by itself.

True, but there's my BB gun on a M1A1 Abram battle tank example.

And the thought that they spent most of their energy getting through the shields thus leaving smaller bolts to cripple the cannons, never crossed your mind?

As I replied to Chris, I assumed there was enough visual evidence to work with.

The entire battle went by in the trailers? Gee whiz!

*sigh* Any reason you're bringing up Star Trek in the PSW forum?

Because the same kind of argument can be used against those explosions and you didn´t think about that?

Robert Walper wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I'm tired of Trekkie morons such as Walper pretending that you can somehow pretend things like seismic charges and Death Stars don't exist by trying to interpret other events to suit a preferred conclusion. The whole concept of respecting the totality of evidence just doesn't seem to occur to these fucktards, for whom RSA appears to be their Pope.

*sigh* And just what conclusions have I been stating here? I asked a simple question in regards to visual evidence (as limited as it may be at the moment).

Because you made an assumption that you so kindly veiled as "Those don't look to me like GT level explosions, so how can the ICS and everything say that Medium TLs are spewing GT level shots?"

But your dumbass does nothing but stare and open your mouth, provide no proof and when asked to back that assumption you go "I got nothing."

Gee, I wonder dumbass.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Crown wrote:My likely explaination (assuming the explosions are the resut of weapon hits and not 'exploding bridge consols' sumsuch), the excess was absorbed by the shields. The part that 'leaked' through is what we see causing the explosions.

How do you even know that the bolt was the cause of the explosion? The blast seen in the trailer could easily have been caused by an internal explosion, following the failure of internal systems. You can then go back and tie the ORIGINAL damage done to the bolt, without the explosion having anything to do with the power of the original weapon.

I don't. I just provided a reasonable explaination to Robert's initial post, taking that post's assertation that the explosion was caused by weapon's hit at face value, to demonstrate that even if the above criteria were valid, the shields are still there.

Master of Ossus wrote:Does one look at the exploding consoles in Star Trek and conclude that their ship-to-ship weapons hit with less force than a hand-grenade?

I seriously hope you don't think that I am that stupid.

Aren't TLs also tightly focused and as such won't typically display the large fireballs?

And Walper, this is obviously a thinly veiled snipe at the ICS. Quit playing innocent.