More Scaling Issues (split from dome shields)

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2004-10-04 07:14pm

I'm gonna have to derail this thread slightly, so I apologise in advance.

Watching the clip of the "supersized frigate", I never reckoned that it was oversized. I always reckoned it was squaring off against a regular Star Destroyer. I mean, they have that 'trench' round the middle, too.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-04 07:17pm

andrewgpaul wrote:I'm gonna have to derail this thread slightly, so I apologise in advance.

Watching the clip of the "supersized frigate", I never reckoned that it was oversized. I always reckoned it was squaring off against a regular Star Destroyer. I mean, they have that 'trench' round the middle, too.

The corvette in the same scene shows that the frigate in question was the ultra-giganto Nebulon-B.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2004-10-04 07:24pm

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you're getting at, here. If anything, the size of that corvette suggests the frigate is 'normal'-sized - unless the Corvette is massive, too (yes, I realise you can't judge the distance right, but if the frigate was comparable in size to an SSD (that'd be, what, 5 or 6 km?), a 100-odd metre corvette wouldn't look so big in comparison).

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-04 07:30pm

SSD is 12.5 km by the Star Wars Databank, 8.5 km by The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (non-canon), and 17.5 km by the length of the original movie model.

I'd go with the 12.5, since it's in between, and since 17.5 seems silly considering the Eclipse is 17.5, has more guns AND has a superlaser.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-04 07:30pm

http://www.mcc3d.com/swtech/FrigateExecutor.mov

Is that the scene you're referring to? If so, it looks fine. That's just one peice of the edge of the SSD- and the edge is super thin compared to the rest of the SSD. So that frigate isn't oversized.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2004-10-04 07:32pm

That's the scene I was talking about, yes. If it is the Executor, fine. Like I said, I just thought it was the edge of an ISD, is all.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-10-04 07:38pm

Praxis wrote:SSD is 12.5 km by the Star Wars Databank, 8.5 km by The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (non-canon), and 17.5 km by the length of the original movie model.

I'd go with the 12.5, since it's in between, and since 17.5 seems silly considering the Eclipse is 17.5, has more guns AND has a superlaser.

Ummm...Inside the Worlds of STar Wars Trilogy...which is pretty much as close to G level(and this can be confirmed within the movie)

The Executor is 17.5 KM.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 07:39pm

Praxis wrote:SSD is 12.5 km by the Star Wars Databank, 8.5 km by The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (non-canon), and 17.5 km by the length of the original movie model.

I'd go with the 12.5, since it's in between, and since 17.5 seems silly considering the Eclipse is 17.5, has more guns AND has a superlaser.

That is a nearly perfect textbook "Golden Mean Fallacy" if I ever saw one. *golf clap*

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-10-04 07:47pm

Praxis wrote:SSD is 12.5 km by the Star Wars Databank, 8.5 km by The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (non-canon), and 17.5 km by the length of the original movie model.

I'd go with the 12.5, since it's in between, and since 17.5 seems silly considering the Eclipse is 17.5, has more guns AND has a superlaser.

Brain-mouth disconnect. As an aside, have you ever even seen an Eclipse? Length be damned, the thing is probably an order of magnitude more massive.

andrewgpaul · Post by **andrewgpaul** » 2004-10-04 07:49pm

A lot more depth, IIRC. I would imagine a fair amount of gizmos for the laser are in that supertanker-esque bulb at the nose.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-04 08:12pm

That is a nearly perfect textbook "Golden Mean Fallacy" if I ever saw one. *golf clap*

Well...my reasoning made sense (since I didn't know about Inside the Worlds), since there are three numbers (8.5, 12.5, 17.5), one seems ridiculously small and from an unofficial source, one seems too large (in comparison to the Eclipse), and the middle one is from an official source. So I went with the official source, which also seems to fit best. But after Ghost Rider's comment...

Ghost Rider wrote:
Praxis wrote:SSD is 12.5 km by the Star Wars Databank, 8.5 km by The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (non-canon), and 17.5 km by the length of the original movie model.

I'd go with the 12.5, since it's in between, and since 17.5 seems silly considering the Eclipse is 17.5, has more guns AND has a superlaser.
Ummm...Inside the Worlds of STar Wars Trilogy...which is pretty much as close to G level(and this can be confirmed within the movie)

The Executor is 17.5 KM.

Ah, I have never seen that one. Since it is semi canon, and above the Star Wars databank, I'd have to go with that figure. I concede the point- the Executer is 17.5 km long.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-04 08:14pm

Praxis wrote:
That is a nearly perfect textbook "Golden Mean Fallacy" if I ever saw one. *golf clap*
Well...my reasoning made sense (since I didn't know about Inside the Worlds), since there are three numbers (8.5, 12.5, 17.5), one seems ridiculously small and from an unofficial source, one seems too large (in comparison to the Eclipse), and the middle one is from an official source.

Um, no. Your reasoning did NOT make any sense at all. You were basing it on subjective impressions and the bizarre notion that the canon film itself is no more of an authoritative source than one of the books.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-04 09:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Praxis wrote:
That is a nearly perfect textbook "Golden Mean Fallacy" if I ever saw one. *golf clap*
Well...my reasoning made sense (since I didn't know about Inside the Worlds), since there are three numbers (8.5, 12.5, 17.5), one seems ridiculously small and from an unofficial source, one seems too large (in comparison to the Eclipse), and the middle one is from an official source.
Um, no. Your reasoning did NOT make any sense at all. You were basing it on subjective impressions and the bizarre notion that the canon film itself is no more of an authoritative source than one of the books.

Something you may not know- I wasn't around when the length of the SSD was debated. I've had one or two people tell me that onscreen it looked more like 17 km, but I've never seen ANY of the evidence myself. So from my POV, having not seen any evidence except someone telling me that if you compare a scene with an ISD next to an SSD the SSD looks long, it was reasonable. And I always felt that 8 was way too small. Knowing that their are official facts to back up 17.5 on the other hand...NOW I wouldn't still say it's 12.5.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-10-04 10:25pm

Praxis wrote:Knowing that their are official facts to back up 17.5 on the other hand...NOW I wouldn't still say it's 12.5.

Correct official facts are nice, but it makes no difference. A mere glance at the screen will tell you what's right, and the movies rule.. literally.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2004-10-04 10:32pm

Praxis wrote:I've had one or two people tell me that onscreen it looked more like 17 km, but I've never seen ANY of the evidence myself.

Why didn't you bother to try looking? A quick stop over at the right place will give you the pictures you need.

Click on the picture there, and take a look at the Executor. Then look at the ISD that is in front of it (bridge tower is obscuring part of the Executor). There is no way the Executor can be less than 11 times the length of an ISD.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-10-04 10:49pm

Mad wrote:
Praxis wrote:I've had one or two people tell me that onscreen it looked more like 17 km, but I've never seen ANY of the evidence myself.
Why didn't you bother to try looking? A quick stop over at the right place will give you the pictures you need.

Click on the picture there, and take a look at the Executor. Then look at the ISD that is in front of it (bridge tower is obscuring part of the Executor). There is no way the Executor can be less than 11 times the length of an ISD.

Awesome. ty. (didn't know where to look)

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-05 12:23am

Praxis wrote:http://www.mcc3d.com/swtech/FrigateExecutor.mov

Is that the scene you're referring to? If so, it looks fine. That's just one peice of the edge of the SSD- and the edge is super thin compared to the rest of the SSD. So that frigate isn't oversized.

Do you see how small the corvette is, next to the frigate? And the corvette is in front of the frigate. That's not the correct size ratio, as established both by shots in RotJ with the entire fleet at Sullust and also by ESB, where the Falcon appeared to be subjectively about the same size next to the frigate as the corvette in this shot.

Edit: in fact, I the corvette in this shot may actually be SMALLER in comparison with the frigate than the Falcon was in Empire.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-10-05 12:26am

It's also "shrinking" relative to the frigate. The truth is, it should've been composited behind the frigate. In case anyone didn't know that already

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-05 12:33am

Split from here.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-10-05 01:52am

Actually I suspect that that is a better size for the "frigate" than 300 meters. Especially if you want to fit two fighter squadrons into there.

Making it larger (I estimate its between 600-800 meters in length approximately.) would mesh nicely with alot of problems.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-05 01:59am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Actually I suspect that that is a better size for the "frigate" than 300 meters. Especially if you want to fit two fighter squadrons into there.

Making it larger (I estimate its between 600-800 meters in length approximately.) would mesh nicely with alot of problems.

I like it, too, it's just inconsistent with other shots of other Nebulon-B's.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-10-05 02:21am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:Actually I suspect that that is a better size for the "frigate" than 300 meters. Especially if you want to fit two fighter squadrons into there.

Making it larger (I estimate its between 600-800 meters in length approximately.) would mesh nicely with alot of problems.
I like it, too, it's just inconsistent with other shots of other Nebulon-B's.

That just means there are two frigates of different size that share roughly those dimensions. Not s urprising.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2004-10-05 02:22am

I like it, too, it's just inconsistent with other shots of other Nebulon-B's.

Wasn´t it conceded that it´s a carrier, not a frigate, since they made it a separate ship-class in one of the Guide-books? (To cover up their mistake, but still, that carrier is canon, I believe...)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-10-05 02:24am

VT-16 wrote:
I like it, too, it's just inconsistent with other shots of other Nebulon-B's.
Wasn´t it conceded that it´s a carrier, not a frigate, since they made it a separate ship-class in one of the Guide-books? (To cover up their mistake, but still, that carrier is canon, I believe...)

There are other "frigate" scale vessls that large (like the Assault frigate), so its not precisely not without precedent nor merit. (Particularily among the "Star Destroyer is a destroyer" crowd.)

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2004-10-05 02:30am

Exactly. And there was this Nebulon-"variant" in one of the latest Empire-comics that was similar in size to the Nebulon-"mistake" in ROTJ. Had fighters flying into a hangar and everything.