Executor = 6249m according to STvSW tard

[Meest]

Didn't want to necro the HOS thread on this so I made this one. In an amazing feat of the worst scaling done ever, Weyoun proclaims the SSD is 6249m. I'm not even going to comment on the Falcon scaling, it's beyond words.

+http://www.strek-v-swars.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=140

(there could be slight error due to perspective)

Slight error. Ya think!?

[Lord Revan]

he seems to think objects coming toward the camera scaled with out perspective correction. The Error itself could exeed difference between he's scaling and actual length itself (min 10 km).

I think this guy learned scaling from Jessie Stamos

[Vympel]

You can see my trying to beat him over the head with common sense as well, complete with links to the archive of Bob Brown's page. Why he thinks that a model with known problems with scale that couldn't possibly fit the actors (MF) is an appropriate benchmark to scale against the entirely uncontroversial ISD rather than vice versa is beyond me.

That's right- he bases this entire absurdity on assuming the MF is 18-20m wide from one scaling job done from a Stormtrooper in Fighter Bay 327.

[wautd]

Didn't want to necro the HOS thread on this so I made this one. In an amazing feat of the worst scaling done ever, Weyoun proclaims the SSD is 6249m. I'm not even going to comment on the Falcon scaling, it's beyond words.

wow

[Mange]

Reading that made my head spin. Why can't they think before they spout? He makes his creative calculations, and forgets one of the most basic thinks for scaling, the Tantive IV! I've put up some numbers over there for him to look at. And Darkstar jumps on the bandwagon???
Oh brother.

[Lord Revan]

Reading that made my head spin. Why can't they think before they spout? He makes his creative calculations, and forgets one of the most basic thinks for scaling, the Tantive IV! I've put up some numbers over there for him to look at. And Darkstar jumps on the bandwagon???
Oh brother.

any one who uses the Falcon as a benchmark for scaling will end up rather weird results (we could use the Defiant simlar to get results).

[Lord Revan]

(we could use the Defiant simlar to get results).

I'm sorry that should read "(we could used the Defiant to get similar results) "

[Darth Lucifer]

<snip>
For now i'll just show my result of scaling the Falcon itself.



I measured the lead stormtrooper as 24 pixels tall. The width of the MF comes to 245 pixels. (there could be slight error due to perspective)

Now assuming the trooper is an average 1.83 meters tall the Falcon calculates to approx. 18.7 meters wide.


Now we go on to scale a Star Destroyer.



Now the Falcon measures approx. 70 pixels wide.
The globe measures 69 pixels across, which calculates to 18.4 meters...
<snip>

I see a very large problem with the first picture...the red line does not go through the center of the "saucer" like in the second picture...the red line should go right through the gun turret to get the true width. Just thought I would point that out.

[Stark]

What a faggot.

So he's decided to change the sizes of all SW ships, based on his dynamic 'utterly retarded' scaling methods? Thats fucking gold. Has anything ever disputed the 'mile-long' thing for ISDs?

[Darth Lucifer]

What a faggot...<snip>

Well, he claims something like 686 meters. But again, his first picture is fucked up to begin with...for chrissakes, the line goes through the radar dish...you can't get the diameter of the round part of the Falcon like that. His perspective is WAY off.

In the second picture, the red line is also drawn from a different point from the first. For better accuracy, he should have measured from the same spots in both pics at least. That's just common fucking sense and a little geometry.

[Stuart Mackey]

Weyoun?!?! The Dancing Borg? that Weyoun?
Lol..that guy can safely be ignored. Its not for nothing that he was Final Solutioned on ASVS.

[Stark]

He's not even TRYING to be consistent: his scaling is just simple-minded and innacurate. Doubtless he's got a huge following.

[Darth Lucifer]

On an unrelated note, it seems that one must display this level of idiocy to have Avatar Privileges. I can't seem to get mine to upload.

[Master of Ossus]

ROFL!

I love his hackjob scaling of the Falcon. The fact that his little line begins behind the cargo hold and ends on one of the mandibles doesn't phase him, nor does the massive perspective distortion. What a loser.

[Rogue 9]

On an unrelated note, it seems that one must display this level of idiocy to have Avatar Privileges. I can't seem to get mine to upload.

No, their avatar uplink simply doesn't work at all. You have to link an avatar from offsite.

[Lord Revan]

What a faggot.

So he's decided to change the sizes of all SW ships, based on his dynamic 'utterly retarded' scaling methods? Thats fucking gold. Has anything ever disputed the 'mile-long' thing for ISDs?

there's some that says it's more then one mile (, but bulk of the evidence is for the 1600m version)

[Mange]

What a faggot.

So he's decided to change the sizes of all SW ships, based on his dynamic 'utterly retarded' scaling methods? Thats fucking gold. Has anything ever disputed the 'mile-long' thing for ISDs?

there's some that says it's more then one mile (, but bulk of the evidence is for the 1600m version)

Yes, dr. Saxton mentions a quote from STAR WARS: From Concept to Screen to Collectible that explicitly states that the Star Destroyer originally was intended to be six miles long.

[Lord Revan]

Yes, dr. Saxton mentions a quote from STAR WARS: From Concept to Screen to Collectible that explicitly states that the Star Destroyer originally was intended to be six miles long.

well to be truthfull there's that one blueprint that says that ISD is less then 1600m, but doesn't fit the seen on screen (this guy calcs are full of shit as the error in them is probaly more then difference between his "estimates" and correct calcs).

[Lord Revan]

I think that his "plan" is use a simple trick (so pimple if fact that it wouldn't work on anybody who has half of a brain) to use his "calculations" to discredit our calcs and the official numbers ("if they got something as simple as this wrong why should we trust them"), so they can pull numbers out of their ass (it's rabid trek site after all).

[Mange]

That BigHairyMountainMan has become mod over there, and answered this post about the absurd scaling Weyoun made:

First things first. You do realize that your creative measurements and scaling would mean that the main hangar aperture of a Star Destroyer would be 78 meters long? And that this in turn would mean that the Tantive IV was 43 meters in length, with a main body of 31 meters in length and an engine section 12 meters in length? Furthermore, the ship would be at the most 11 meters wide? Hmm, that goes against what is shown in ANH, uh?
So you say the Tantive IV is 100m overall, then, not the 150m "commonly referenced"?

11m wide is the width of a house. Plenty enough for a running firefight. Examine the model in detail... looks like a two deck ship for the most part, if even that. (Do we ever see someone change decks in the TIV?) That would be reasonably consistent with a 43 - or, should I say, 64? - meter ship. IIRC, we have one main central corridor, which the stormies go up and down. I insist... please, do go on into greater detail on scaling the ISD from the TIV.

Now... when I look at, for example, the [EU] "blueprints" of an ISD here (IIRC, that's from the EG, but it looks fairly true to the model), it looks much like the ISD as seen... and the main hangar bay is about 1/7th the length of the ISD in that picture, taking into account angle. That would mean a bit under 100m long or so for Weyoun's scaling. You're a bit low there.

I'd've never thought of disputing the commonly accepted ISD length before, but it does appear to be on ... less-than-solid ground.

You want backstage evidence? We may find backstage evidence on Saxton's SWTC; examine this picture. Yes, the one he says is inconsistent with the films, based on internal scalings. That scaling diagram shows roughly the sizes Weyoun is talking about with regard to the Falcon and ISD... and roughly the relative size of Tantive IV to Falcon that you're saying it would require.

Then, as far as "official" references go... prior to the release of the WEG, he notes, some blueprints were released. If you examine those pictures, you'll find one gives a length of 380m by scale bar, while another other gives an explicit length of ... wait for it.... 686.5m. Sound familiar at all? It's very close to what Weyoun just arrived at. That particular set of blueprints also gives the yield of some of its non-laser weapons (megatons), and cites ISDs as being powered by redundant antimatter reactors, gives a crew size (much smaller than later references), gives a max hyperjump range (250 psc), a mass (1.52 million tons), etc etc - I can see why certain people would rather just toss that particular source out.

Saxton, incidentally, claims that these blueprints are wrong because the fore bay would be too small to release a shuttle (with folded wings; forward "small" bay diameter is ~24m for a 686.5m ISD), too small for the Falcon in relation to the globes (based on a "large" Falcon), and too small for the Tantive IV to fit in the main bay (which would still be almost 100m long... quite enough to fit a Tantive IV with not very many decks).

Weyoun's pictures do indeed have some problems with orthogonality. I'll be looking into the matter myself. It's a very intriguing point... and means, as well, that the floor on the size of the DS2 that I suggested by the Executor crash isn't nearly as high, as the Executor would then be under 8 km in length.

So, we have a few "benchmark" objects to work with shown in close relation to ISDs, some of which are under dispute. Tantive IV, Millenium Falcon, TIEs, and shuttles. Can we agree on the latter two objects' size?

We have two different figures cited in the official material - 1600m, and 686.5m. Both of these may be useful targets. I'll see what I can dig up. Frankly, I think most of the pictoral evidence is out there to sort out how large the ISD is truly portrayed as in the movies. That it has been consistently described as 1600m in all recent EU references is not under dispute - but, then again, that the EU once fairly consistently described Super Star Destroyers as five times the length of ISDs should be quite familiar to all of you.

Note that he tried to distort the proportions of the ISD's hangar aperture and tried to use that old pre-production drawing made by Joe Johnston available over at the Technical Commentaries. I'd like to see the Falcon try to fit to the command tower with that in mind. Their arguments are getting more and more desperate.

[Bounty]

If the MF is really as small as he claims, I wonder how he fits in the access tubes between the guns, or that lift Lando uses in ESB

(Are there any reliable deckplans for the Falcon ? Just curious...)

[Mange]

If the MF is really as small as he claims, I wonder how he fits in the access tubes between the guns, or that lift Lando uses in ESB

(Are there any reliable deckplans for the Falcon ? Just curious...)

Well, the ICS offers the best official floorplans, and I would say that Bob Brown's compromise is the best unofficial one. The site is off-line but has been archived:

+http://web.archive.org/web/200212040458 ... mfplan.htm

[Bounty]

Thanks.

[Mange]

Perhaps I should add that it's the main body alone that would be 43 meters. I mixed up two numbers I had written down.

[Darth Lucifer]

According to Curtis Saxton (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/daggerdata.html ) the globes are 2.68% of an ISD's length.

I can't seem to find this in the link he posted. Any confirmation on this figure?