Good scaling image of an ISD

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-01-18 03:08pm

I need one for something, does anyone know of a good one? The ones I've found aren't directly from the side.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-18 04:00pm

Clicky clicky

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2005-01-18 04:39pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Clicky clicky

Rouge, I love you!

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2005-01-18 04:53pm

I thought the Defiant was 120m?

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2005-01-18 08:32pm

The Defiant's one of those tricky ones, that has had scaling issues as shown in the series, and explained in detail in this article.

"officially", the length is 170m, though the overwhelming evidence (when consistant enough to use) shows 120m.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2005-01-18 08:41pm

And the Victory is 800 m.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-18 08:52pm

YT300000 wrote:And the Victory is 800 m.

Take it up with Dalton. It's on his fanfic archive. It was just the first one I thought of.

Alternatively, http://www.merzo.net

Edit: Say, I think he's added a new category. I don't remember the tab labeled BIG being there before.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-01-18 10:03pm

Remember to e-mail this guy with direct quotes from OT ICS about Death Star I @ 160 km, and ITWoSWT for DS2 @ 900 km, AT-AT @ 22.5 m, and Executor @ 17.6 km - 19.2 km.

spongyblue · Post by **spongyblue** » 2005-01-18 10:09pm

awsome! he added Unicron!!

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-18 10:13pm

Those pictures Rogue linked to, isn't there one of them that shows a comparison between the ISD and the Allegiance class?

[edit] Nevermind, I seem to have found it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-01-19 02:27am

:rolls: He's using 'official' dimensions, hence the 12.8km Executor. What a way to kill a useful site; as far as I know most of the other sizes are just as suspect. He even refers to the correct size for Executor in his FAQ! He's claiming the 'artists intent' so that likely gives him leeway to reduce the size of many ships. At least the IMAGE of Executor is the full version, not the WEG truncated version.

EDIT - MADNESS! The index has the correct SSD length. Whats going on? Is the site in the middle of an update? DS and DS2 are also quoted on index as having correct sizes. Wierd, say I.

EDIT2 - UBER MADNESS! He originally had accurate scaling, but 'public pressure' forced him to revert to lam0r sizes. Wierd, considering all the recent publications... and unfortunate. Poor guy.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-19 02:41am

Stark wrote::rolls: He's using 'official' dimensions, hence the 12.8km Executor. What a way to kill a useful site; as far as I know most of the other sizes are just as suspect. He even refers to the correct size for Executor in his FAQ! He's claiming the 'artists intent' so that likely gives him leeway to reduce the size of many ships. At least the IMAGE of Executor is the full version, not the WEG truncated version.

EDIT - MADNESS! The index has the correct SSD length. Whats going on? Is the site in the middle of an update? DS and DS2 are also quoted on index as having correct sizes. Wierd, say I.

EDIT2 - UBER MADNESS! He originally had accurate scaling, but 'public pressure' forced him to revert to lam0r sizes. Wierd, considering all the recent publications... and unfortunate. Poor guy.

He was being spammed all day every day by TFN and official site wankers, apparently. Me, I'd tell them to shove off, but I suppose such constant harassment does get annoying after awhile.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-19 02:49am

Aren't there anti-spam measures available for just such a contingencies?

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-01-19 03:12am

Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2005-01-19 03:39am

You know, you guys linked to the old version of the ship comparison chart. I redid it a while ago: Comparison chart, revised

Dark Primus · Post by **Dark Primus** » 2005-01-19 06:40am

He should add in TV series version of Cybertron too, that would rock. Or Primus perhaps, now when there are official images of him transformed from Cybertron to humanoid transformer.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-01-19 06:56am

Crayz9000 wrote:You know, you guys linked to the old version of the ship comparison chart. I redid it a while ago: Comparison chart, revised

Great chart! I guess that Home One (at 3.8 km) was too large to be included. That would've been interesting.

buzz_knox · Post by **buzz_knox** » 2005-01-19 09:52am

Are there any references as to the overall dimensions of SW ships? I've been looking for a width or height calculation without success.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-01-19 02:27pm

Vympel wrote:Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.

Shall we inform Mr. Russell of such? He's still updating the site and he probably has the old version; he could just put it back up.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-01-19 02:48pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Vympel wrote:Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.
Shall we inform Mr. Russell of such? He's still updating the site and he probably has the old version; he could just put it back up.

We could at least try and convince him to put both versions up. He can say, "here is the official site size version and here is the calculated size version". That way people can pick and choose which one they want to use and the TFN wankers have no leg to stand on (not to mention that that way people can see for themselves which ISD-SSD lineup resembles the visuals in the movies more

).

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-01-19 03:01pm

Vympel wrote:Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.

Do we have this verbatim?

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2005-01-19 07:50pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Clicky clicky

OOOOhh, I wondered where this site was.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-01-19 08:04pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Vympel wrote:Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.
Shall we inform Mr. Russell of such? He's still updating the site and he probably has the old version; he could just put it back up.

I did email him a while back, but so far, no changes...

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-01-19 08:10pm

Exxxcelent.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-01-19 09:02pm

The Original Nex wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Vympel wrote:Well TFN/official site wankers have no argument anymore. Not only do we have all the official sizes as they should be, we have explicit statements from Leland Chee admitting that 12.8km is WRONG and that 17.6km (or 11 times the size, whatever) is what the films show.
Shall we inform Mr. Russell of such? He's still updating the site and he probably has the old version; he could just put it back up.
I did email him a while back, but so far, no changes...

Emailed him today about the ITW:OT, maybe we can make a counter-flood until he changes it back?