Just curious

[DarkStar]

A simple question:

Saxton's pages appear to use several different sizes for the ISD towers and
the thingies on them. For example:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#model

The above page gives an ISD tower width of 265-270 meters, 284 max.

But now, look here:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes

He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere on
the site).

This makes no sense. Take a look at this picture:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface2a.jpg

That's supposed to be the Avenger (ISD-II) bridge tower. If you compare
the globes to the width of the entire face, you can squeeze about 8.4 to 8.5
globes across the front. The tower is 1265 pixels wide, and the globe is
150.

8.4 x 41 = 344.4
8.4 x 43 = 361.2
8.5 x 41 = 348.5
8.5 x 43 = 365.5

From the 41 or 43 meter globe figure, we get tower widths of 344-366 meters.
That's up to 100 meters longer than the figure Saxton gives.

On the other hand, if we scale the globes off of the tower face figure from
Saxton, we get globes of 31-32 meters in size, with a maximum of 33.6
meters.

What's going on? Am I missing something, or is this a critical
discrepancy? I know globes have been used to scale everything from the
Falcon to asteroids, so I would think this is important.

[David]

He may have been refering to different classes of SDs. One size may not fit all.

What's going on? Am I missing something, or is this a critical
discrepancy? I know globes have been used to scale everything from the
Falcon to asteroids, so I would think this is important.

Saxton's pages are not cannon and probably contain at least some errors due to its size. You don't appear to care much about what the actual size may or may not be, only finding possible errors in Saxton's site.


In other words you are just stirring up trouble, and you know it. So is it a critical discrepancy? No, you seem to think that the whole validicy of his work hinges on these calculations, more likely it was a mistake, or he was refering to different classes.

[DarkStar]

He may have been refering to different classes of SDs. One size may not fit all.

The difference won't be that great between ISD classes. We're talking 100 meters.

Saxton's pages are not cannon and probably contain at least some errors due to its size. You don't appear to care much about what the actual size may or may not be, only finding possible errors in Saxton's site.

In other words you are just stirring up trouble, and you know it. So is it a critical discrepancy? No, you seem to think that the whole validicy of his work hinges on these calculations, more likely it was a mistake, or he was refering to different classes.

Oh, please blow me, you stupid shit. I was asking a simple question. I wasn't accusing Saxton of lying or "dishonest fallibility"... this is one of those errors that can only be an error, as far as I can tell. I wanted to know the actual accepted fact of the matter, not be accused of stupid shit by a stupid shit. If I had felt the question had bearing toward the Vs debate, I would have put it in that forum.

[Master of Ossus]

The size difference isn't that great between an M1A1 tank and a British Mk1 Tank from the first world war, but the differences in firepower, protection, mobility, and reliability sure are.

[DarkStar]

The size difference isn't that great between an M1A1 tank and a British Mk1 Tank from the first world war, but the differences in firepower, protection, mobility, and reliability sure are.

What the hell are you talking about? What the hell does capability have to do with this? I'm asking a question about size, you moron. Stop losing your shit.

Since no one here or at ASVS had a clue (especially not you), I did my own thing:

"Okay,

Somehow, Saxton derived a completely improper figure for the bridge globes. If you take http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdflank1.jpg and do the measurements, you'll find that the bridge domes simply cannot be 41 meters.

But, that pic is of an ISD-II (Avenger), judging by the lack of quad-lasers in
the notch and the overall level of detail. The pic of an ISD-I suggests a
high-30's figure for the globe diameter, close to Saxton's 41 meter figure.
Apparently Saxton just didn't differentiate between classes."

You wanna lose your shit some more and start spewing random unrelated crap, or you wanna shut up and admit that you just attacked me for asking a simple question (and will probably attack me again for answering it!)?

[Darth Wong]

Somehow, Saxton derived a completely improper figure for the bridge globes. If you take http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdflank1.jpg and do the measurements, you'll find that the bridge domes simply cannot be 41 meters.

But, that pic is of an ISD-II (Avenger), judging by the lack of quad-lasers in the notch and the overall level of detail. The pic of an ISD-I suggests a
high-30's figure for the globe diameter, close to Saxton's 41 meter figure.
Apparently Saxton just didn't differentiate between classes."

Four words: WHO GIVES A SHIT?

Let's just assume that you're correct (a rather generous assumption in light of your past distortions), and the correct size is "high 30's" instead of 41. So what? His figures are slightly off? High 30's instead of 41? Who cares? Is better than 10% accuracy the norm in sci-fi discussions now? As I've said elsewhere, you are nothing but an unapologetic nitpicker. No one is going to learn anything new or useful about Star Wars from a thread like this.

[DarkStar]

Let's just assume that you're correct (a rather generous assumption in light of your past distortions), and the correct size is "high 30's" instead of 41. So what? His figures are slightly off? High 30's instead of 41? Who cares? As I've said elsewhere, you are nothing but an unapologetic nitpicker.

You're picking up some bad habits from your disciples, such as an utter lack of reading comprehension.

The point is that the correct size of the Avenger (ISD-II) globes is 31.5 meters (+/- .5), or ten meters less than Saxton's figure commonly used for all globes.

I got high-thirties off of a quick and dirty scaling of the ISD-I globe, from which Saxton apparently gets his 41 meter figure.

I am not contesting the 41 meter figure for ISD-I globes. I am contesting the fact that the 41m figure is often used for ISD-II globes, because that is incorrect... scaling based on that will be flawed. I know you don't care about errors such as that, but I do, and perhaps a few other readers may find it useful in the future.

In short, fuck off.

[Darth Wong]

And that rant about mis-identification of ISD1 and ISD2 globes disproves my point about the pointlessness of your nitpicks ... how?

Yet again, Darkstar, you show that nitpicks are the only thing you have to contribute to any discussion. Congratulations.

Oh, and by the way, fuck you too.

[Stuart Mackey]

[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about? What the hell does capability have to do with this? I'm asking a question about size, you moron. Stop losing your shit.

Since no one here or at ASVS had a clue (especially not you), I did my own thing[/quote]

Lol, Every one thinks you are wrong about some point, and you think other have not a clue? Perhaps if you dig your head out of your ass, you might be humble enough to realise that you could be wrong.

[DarkStar]

Yet again, Darkstar, you show that nitpicks are the only thing you have to contribute to any discussion. Congratulations.

I'm contributing facts. You're contributing venom, name-calling, and a lack of reading comprehension.

Hmm ... entertainingly enough, that would seem to make you a troll. One would hope for better out of someone who runs the discussion forum.

[DarkStar]

Every one thinks you are wrong about some point

So, wait, you don't even know what we're talking about, but you're still going to jump my case for even talking about it? Fuuuuuuuuck you.

[Darth Wong]

Yet again, Darkstar, you show that nitpicks are the only thing you have to contribute to any discussion. Congratulations.

I'm contributing facts. You're contributing venom, name-calling, and a lack of reading comprehension.

Your "facts" are nitpicks. Apparently, the point sailed way over your head. And as for name-calling, I'm merely pointing out the truth; you're an inveterate nitpicker whose sole purpose seems to be wasting other peoples' time. You can accuse others of being trolls if you like, but everyone knows the troll is you.

Hmm ... entertainingly enough, that would seem to make you a troll. One would hope for better out of someone who runs the discussion forum.

If you don't know what the proper definition of a troll is, that's your problem, not mine.

[Stuart Mackey]

Every one thinks you are wrong about some point

So, wait, you don't even know what we're talking about, but you're still going to jump my case for even talking about it? Fuuuuuuuuck you.

Oh, I dont huh? And you would know this how?
Smeghead.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

At lest he's calling them "sensor globes".

Anyway, you should tell this to Saxton.

[DarkStar]

Your "facts" are nitpicks.

Thank you for once again proving that truth isn't something you care deeply about.

Wong: "1 + 1 = 2.00005"
Me : "No, 1 + 1 = 2, as demonstrated by..."
Wong: "Shut up, nitpicker."

[Cpt_Frank]

Your "facts" are nitpicks.

Thank you for once again proving that truth isn't something you care deeply about.

Wong: "1 + 1 = 2.00005"
Me : "No, 1 + 1 = 2, as demonstrated by..."
Wong: "Shut up, nitpicker."

Darkstar,
since you ignored virtually everything posted by Lord Wong or anyone else here, I will sum it up for you again, hoping that now you will finally understand it.

What do you mean with he doesn't care about the truth?
If it is true that the size of the globe is different, is this the Ultimate Truth Which Will Make My Oh So Beloved Star Trek More Powerful Than Big Bad SW(TM)?
No.
Regarding the SW vs ST topic,
it is irrellevant if the globes sizes differ from ISD I to ISD II.
Just as it is irrellevant if Amidala's sensor globes are bigger than Princess Leia's.

This little example of yours portrays a different situation, and as such, is an invalid comparison: In your example, the main topic is the question how much 1+1 is.
However, the main topic of a SWvsST board is not the question if the sensor globes of an ISD I are larger than the ones on an ISD II.

Btw, if you want to question Saxton's credibility, prove that his calcs regarding SW firepower of shielding (things which are actually relevant for the vs discussion) are wrong.

[DarkStar]

Frank,

It is a fact. We need the actual facts if we are to debate. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of idiots saying "sTAr WaRz/TrEk ROOLZ".

Facts such as the size of the ISD globes are especially necessary, since they are often used for scaling, such as has occurred with the Millenium Falcon, various asteroids, other parts of the ISD, etc.

Nitpicky? No. Small errors, like 10 extra meters on a scanner globe, can grow into large ones when the error-fact is used to derive other information.

[SirNitram]

Wow, a difference of a few meters between classes of SD that vary either a little or massively. I'm so terrified.

Well, watch me resolve this nitpick so seamlessly Dark Star will wonder how I did it(While claiming I'm talking out of my ass, of course, since he can't actually rebutt an argument).

The most obvious subclasses of ISD are the I and II. The II, it should be noted, carries noticably more weapons than it's predecessor, and according to WEG stats, these weapons have higher fire-control, and the ship has greater sensor power.

Therefore, I conclude that the difference in globe size is the direct result of the need for increased sensor power.

Continued variation can be explained by the varying number of weapons in different ISD's(Looking carefully at models and drawings, it becomes apparantly few ISD's are exactly alike.. Not unusual, considering how many facilities must have been used to assemble them, and supply shortages could have lead staff to improvise.).

[nightmare]

A simple question:

Saxton's pages appear to use several different sizes for the ISD towers and
the thingies on them. For example:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#model

The above page gives an ISD tower width of 265-270 meters, 284 max.

That is an SSD.

But now, look here:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes

He says the sensor globes are 41 meters wide. (He also says 43 elsewhere on
the site).

He uses different sources to find the best overall comprehension of SW canon, which you also should do.

This makes no sense. Take a look at this picture:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface2a.jpg

That's supposed to be the Avenger (ISD-II) bridge tower. If you compare
the globes to the width of the entire face, you can squeeze about 8.4 to 8.5
globes across the front. The tower is 1265 pixels wide, and the globe is
150.

8.4 x 41 = 344.4
8.4 x 43 = 361.2
8.5 x 41 = 348.5
8.5 x 43 = 365.5

From the 41 or 43 meter globe figure, we get tower widths of 344-366 meters.
That's up to 100 meters longer than the figure Saxton gives.

On the other hand, if we scale the globes off of the tower face figure from
Saxton, we get globes of 31-32 meters in size, with a maximum of 33.6
meters.

What's going on? Am I missing something, or is this a critical
discrepancy? I know globes have been used to scale everything from the
Falcon to asteroids, so I would think this is important.

Pixel width for Devastator tower = 1044
Pixel width for Devastator globe = 148
Size ratio = 8,49
Note: picture at a slight angle

Pixel width for Avenger tower = 1274
Pixel width for Avenger globe = 150
Size ratio = 7,05

I have found Saxton to be very conservative in his figures before. This is not an error, but a hallmark of the careful researcher. 270 m should be considered the minimum size for the bridge tower.

On a side note, I have studied your proposed theory on the possibility of the Death Star destroying Alderaan by a chain reaction rather than by direct energy input. You compare the visual evidence to the effects of the genesis device, but this is inherently faulty. There is no indication that chain reactions in Star Wars, not Star Trek, should look anything like it. In other words, your theory is based on a faulty assumption and is therefore automatically invalid, regardless of whatever other merit it may have, not that I found any.

[Cpt_Frank]

Indeed, ISDs often vary a little bit from one another.
Mostly the differences are some small things in the brim trench or the bridge surface sitting on different locations ore being absent, or windows missing or located in different places, things which the normal observer would hardly notice.
But sometimes there are be differences which go further than that:
the glorious ISD Accuser, later to be known as Emancipator, was missing those outcuts in the brim trench, for example.
So it might as well be possible that some ISDs feature larger sensor globes than others, perhaps to store more equipment in them.

[IDMR]

No, it goes more like this:

Mike: Pi is about 3.1415
DarkStar: No, Pi is clearly 3.141592653589793238462... And incidentally it renders all your calculation of circumference utterly inaccurate.

[SirNitram]

Pixel width for Devastator tower = 1044
Pixel width for Devastator globe = 148
Size ratio = 8,49
Note: picture at a slight angle

Pixel width for Avenger tower = 1274
Pixel width for Avenger globe = 150
Size ratio = 7,05

I have found Saxton to be very conservative in his figures before. This is not an error, but a hallmark of the careful researcher. 270 m should be considered the minimum size for the bridge tower.

On a side note, I have studied your proposed theory on the possibility of the Death Star destroying Alderaan by a chain reaction rather than by direct energy input. You compare the visual evidence to the effects of the genesis device, but this is inherently faulty. There is no indication that chain reactions in Star Wars, not Star Trek, should look anything like it. In other words, your theory is based on a faulty assumption and is therefore automatically invalid, regardless of whatever other merit it may have, not that I found any.

Your scaling is pretty good. Are you someone whose name I should know?

Check out his arguments concerning the fighter attack on the Death Star, then reread his chain reaction theory. You will find, amusingly, he demands that a bolt need to shot the 'splinter' effect for X-wings to have shields, but when he sees such a 'splinter' effect occour on Alderaan in ANH SE, he demands it be proof of a magic reaction more complicated than all power-generation theories.

[DarkStar]

Wow, a difference of a few meters between classes of SD that vary either a little or massively. I'm so terrified.

Well, watch me resolve this nitpick so seamlessly Dark Star will wonder how I did it(While claiming I'm talking out of my ass, of course, since he can't actually rebutt an argument).

The most obvious subclasses of ISD are the I and II. The II, it should be noted, carries noticably more weapons than it's predecessor, and according to WEG stats, these weapons have higher fire-control, and the ship has greater sensor power.

Therefore, I conclude that the difference in globe size is the direct result of the need for increased sensor power.

Continued variation can be explained by the varying number of weapons in different ISD's(Looking carefully at models and drawings, it becomes apparantly few ISD's are exactly alike.. Not unusual, considering how many facilities must have been used to assemble them, and supply shortages could have lead staff to improvise.).

Okay, so what? I was never concerned with why there were differences, just that there were differences which were not commonly acknowledged.

[DarkStar]

A simple question:

Saxton's pages appear to use several different sizes for the ISD towers and
the thingies on them. For example:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#model

The above page gives an ISD tower width of 265-270 meters, 284 max.

That is an SSD.

And as Saxton points out repeatedly (on that page and elsewhere), there is a consistency to bridge towers. Your point is moot, anyway, since the 31.5m figure is confirmed by comparison to the entire ISD-II the globes sit on.

I have found Saxton to be very conservative in his figures before. This is not an error, but a hallmark of the careful researcher. 270 m should be considered the minimum size for the bridge tower.

Actually, the minimum he gives is 265, when he's actually stating a size range. And again, the point is that there are differences between ISD-1 and ISD-2 models... 41m doesn't fit for an ISD-2.

On a side note, I have studied your proposed theory on the possibility of the Death Star destroying Alderaan by a chain reaction rather than by direct energy input. You compare the visual evidence to the effects of the genesis device, but this is inherently faulty.

How many times do I have to remind people that the part in quotation marks was a simple aside? (Aside: not part of the main text) It was not the basis for my argument, nor was it used as proof thereof.

In other words, your theory is based on a faulty assumption and is therefore automatically invalid, regardless of whatever other merit it may have, not that I found any.

You know, I was thinking decent things about you until this sentence, even though you had failed to read Saxton's bridge tower arguments and were defending a ludicrous figure for the ISD-II globes. 'We all make mistakes', I thought. But, now it's clear that your intelligence is simply lacking.

[DarkStar]

Check out his arguments concerning the fighter attack on the Death Star, then reread his chain reaction theory. You will find, amusingly, he demands that a bolt need to shot the 'splinter' effect for X-wings to have shields, but when he sees such a 'splinter' effect occour on Alderaan in ANH SE, he demands it be proof of a magic reaction more complicated than all power-generation theories.

You know, lying to me is one thing... I've come to expect it of you. But now you're lying to one of your own. Have you no shame?