Questions about SD.net

Captain Jack Frank · Post by **Captain Jack Frank** » 2003-01-02 05:32pm

Okay, I've looked through the "Five Minute" section of Mike's site, and I'm a tad bit confused. While it's pretty clear that the numbers shown in the page clearly indicate that the Imperials would easily trounce the UFP, how did Mike get those numbers? Where can I look up the numbers that he used for the page?

I also met another few people on the internet that claim that the weapons of the Federation and its allies are much more powerful than those of the Galactic Empire. Which numbers are more accurate, and why are they more accurate? Can someone please help me out with this?

Thanks in advance!

Captain Frank

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-02 05:37pm

The numbers come from Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections by Dr. Curtis Saxton.

The trekkies you encountered are just delusional. The Wars numbers are most assuradly dead on as they are verbaitem out of a quasi canon book. And the trek numbers come right out to the Star Trek Technical Manual, so those are approved as well. Our numbers are just higher. Alot higher. Please direct any of those trekkies to this board so we can toy with them for our own ammusement.

Captain Jack Frank · Post by **Captain Jack Frank** » 2003-01-02 05:40pm

Ender wrote:The numbers come from Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross Sections by Dr. Curtis Saxton.

The trekkies you encountered are just delusional. The Wars numbers are most assuradly dead on as they are verbaitem out of a quasi canon book. And the trek numbers come right out to the Star Trek Technical Manual, so those are approved as well. Our numbers are just higher. Alot higher. Please direct any of those trekkies to this board so we can toy with them for our own ammusement.

I guess I should just send them feedback. Some of them I've seen have written websites, but I'm still confused as to what the discrepency between the numbers is about. After all, everyone watches the same movies and the same shows. How can one group claim that they're numbers are thousands of times higher than those the otehr group si talkign about, when that group claims that THEIR numbers are a lot higher? How can two groups disagree about something so much, if it should be easy to quantify?

Captain Jack Frank · Post by **Captain Jack Frank** » 2003-01-02 05:55pm

I guess what I'm asking is this: if one side is wrong, they're wrong by a factor of several thousand at the least. The other option is that both sides are wrong, but they could be wrong either way. How come the numbers on this site are better than the ones that this other guy has, here:
http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWcompare.html
He says that Star Trek is a lot more powerful than Star Wars, and the guy who runs this site says that Star Wars is a lot more powerful. Why is one ofthem so horribly wrong? How can two people look at the same stuff and see such different things?

Another guy who really seemeed smart to me has a website here:
http://www.ditl.org/
But his numbers are way different from this site. It doesn't seem possible that two people can disagree so much about things that should be easy to figure out.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-02 05:56pm

Robert and Graham. Go read the Hate Mail page.

Biasically, RSA gets that stuff because he ignores all the Wars evidence, even the stuff in the movies whe it is convienent, and GK just makes stuff up and has shitty math.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-01-02 06:10pm

Go to this page:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/index.html
This will give you a more detailed accounting as well as evidence used.

Often you will find people citing the Star Wars Technical Commentaries
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

Compare those to the other two sites you mentioned. I think you'll find a world of difference in the methods used to reach their conclusions.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-01-02 06:23pm

Kennedy is weird/nuts.....PERIOD

Here's one for the Defiant

3 x Pulse fire Quantum/Photon torpedo tubes + 100 torpedoes

100 torpedoes on a ship that is about 120 meters with a small crew of 80 peeps......

If The torpedoes are 1 meter long and half meter wide it would be .5 square meters. 100 X .5 is 50 meters. 50 meters of the ship is taken up by torpedoes? THAT'S A LOT OF CARGO ROOMS!!!

Correct me if wrong lol.

Cyaround,
Jason

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-02 06:27pm

If The torpedoes are 1 meter long and half meter wide it would be .5 square meters. 100 X .5 is 50 meters. 50 meters of the ship is taken up by torpedoes? THAT'S A LOT OF CARGO ROOMS!!!

Correct me if wrong lol.

Good example not to mention the Diagrams of the ship leave room for, oooh maybe 20-30 Missles not 100!

Yesh 40 or so is just for the Engines, and where is the Command and Controls systems? Lets not Forget ARMOR(One of the few ships to be Heavly Armored)

Forgeting the Humans for a moment you have less than 80 Square Meters to fit the Weapons system and Torp Launchers in

Of course this is not the first time "size matters not" or witness the number of shuttles Voyager went through

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-02 06:31pm

Soontir C'boath wrote:Kennedy is weird/nuts.....PERIOD

Here's one for the Defiant
3 x Pulse fire Quantum/Photon torpedo tubes + 100 torpedoes
100 torpedoes on a ship that is about 120 meters with a small crew of 80 peeps......

If The torpedoes are 1 meter long and half meter wide it would be .5 square meters. 100 X .5 is 50 meters. 50 meters of the ship is taken up by torpedoes? THAT'S A LOT OF CARGO ROOMS!!!

Correct me if wrong lol.

Cyaround,
Jason

That would be 50 sqaure meters, assuming a single stack you could fit that into a 50 square meters of deck space. You would not need 50 meters of the ships length. 5-10 at most, and a double or triple stack fruther reduces it.

Darth Yoshi · Post by **Darth Yoshi** » 2003-01-02 06:35pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That would be 50 sqaure meters, assuming a single stack you could fit that into a 50 square meters of deck space. You would not need 50 meters of the ships length. 5-10 at most, and a double or triple stack fruther reduces it.

True, but then you'd need to factor in the depth of the torp.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-01-02 06:40pm

The first was written by a guy we know as Darkstar. He has not shown how he comes up with his data. He reduces the Death Star to some technobable trick rather then the use of pure power. this is so that he doesn't have to admit that the Empire has better technology than his beloved Star Trek.

The second was made by Graham Kennedy. As far as Star Trek History goes his site it good but he aspouces to the 'no lasers' phallacy. So according to him despite the power levels a Star Wars Ship armed with Turbolasers would not harm the Enterprise even the Death Star Superlaser. His ship sizes are good but question anything that is printed in white since he made it all up himself.

Captain Jack Frank · Post by **Captain Jack Frank** » 2003-01-02 08:57pm

Isolder74 wrote:The first was written by a guy we know as Darkstar. He has not shown how he comes up with his data. He reduces the Death Star to some technobable trick rather then the use of pure power. this is so that he doesn't have to admit that the Empire has better technology than his beloved Star Trek.

Why would people do that? Is'nt this just a hobby that people have? This is like cheating in miniature golf, isn't it? I don't see how this is possible. There's no way someone would deliberately change things just for the purposes of this silly argument.

The second was made by Graham Kennedy. As far as Star Trek History goes his site it good but he aspouces to the 'no lasers' phallacy. So according to him despite the power levels a Star Wars Ship armed with Turbolasers would not harm the Enterprise even the Death Star Superlaser. His ship sizes are good but question anything that is printed in white since he made it all up himself.

I don't see that he's saying a superlaser couldn't kill a ST ship, but I'm confused again. How can a ship possibly be completely immune to weapons fire like this? I thought the borg used lasers, adn the UFP didn't do well against them.

Captain Jack Frank · Post by **Captain Jack Frank** » 2003-01-02 08:59pm

Phil Skayhan wrote:Go to this page:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/index.html
This will give you a more detailed accounting as well as evidence used.

Often you will find people citing the Star Wars Technical Commentaries
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

Compare those to the other two sites you mentioned. I think you'll find a world of difference in the methods used to reach their conclusions.

I think that the pages you gave me are more reasonable, but the one guy seems relaly pissed off at everyone he talks to. His evidence is good, but couldn't he be a little nicer? Just a thought. The other site is really good.

But here's something: if the Tehcnical Manual says that phasers have a low energy output, and that the torpedoes have a low output, and the SW books says that SW weapons have a very high energy output, how come these guys don't just say that SW has better tech? How can it be that difficult?

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-01-02 09:22pm

Captain Jack Frank wrote: But here's something: if the Tehcnical Manual says that phasers have a low energy output, and that the torpedoes have a low output, and the SW books says that SW weapons have a very high energy output, how come these guys don't just say that SW has better tech? How can it be that difficult?

They don't want their beloved show being trashed by other Sci-Fi series no matter what.

Cyaround,
Jason

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-01-02 09:26pm

Captain Jack Frank wrote:Why would people do that? Is'nt this just a hobby that people have? This is like cheating in miniature golf, isn't it? I don't see how this is possible. There's no way someone would deliberately change things just for the purposes of this silly argument.

He deliberatly ignores evidence about it, so yes he does. I guess everyone takes this too seriously.

I don't see that he's saying a superlaser couldn't kill a ST ship, but I'm confused again. How can a ship possibly be completely immune to weapons fire like this? I thought the borg used lasers, adn the UFP didn't do well against them.

He rather convienently ignores the borg lasers

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-01-02 10:06pm

Why would people do that? Is'nt this just a hobby that people have? This is like cheating in miniature golf, isn't it? I don't see how this is possible. There's no way someone would deliberately change things just for the purposes of this silly argument.

Welcome to the wonderful world of nerds Jack

We take ourselves very serious, too serious in fact. When someone insults a show we like many of us take it as a personal insult. Its just how things work around here. Don't try thinking bout it too hard. It will make your head hurt.

Oh, by the way, a little off topic, but does anyone know if Darkstar got his name from the villain of the show Macron 1?? Just curious.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-01-03 12:32am

I believe unfortunatly Darstar took his fabled namesake from the John Carpenter movie.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2003-01-03 02:28am

Captain Jack Frank wrote:
I think that the pages you gave me are more reasonable, but the one guy seems relaly pissed off at everyone he talks to. His evidence is good, but couldn't he be a little nicer? Just a thought. The other site is really good.

Flaming is an honored tradition in these debates. Plus, given that most of the challenges to Mike Wong's work have been done ad nauseum even before he put the site up four years ago, it is not surprising that he is blunt rather than subtle in his approach.

Captain Jack Frank wrote:But here's something: if the Tehcnical Manual says that phasers have a low energy output, and that the torpedoes have a low output, and the SW books says that SW weapons have a very high energy output, how come these guys don't just say that SW has better tech? How can it be that difficult?

The problem with the Star Trek Manuals is that other than what is directly verifiable in either the episodes or the movies is more often than not unsubstantiated. They also are not recognized by Paramount whereas the Star Wars book (ICS for example) are by LucasFilm.

This is not to say that these "official" works are inflallable. For example, the length of the Super Star Destroyers:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html#size

Of course, this should serve as an example of how difficult it is to correct an error by only an official source. That is why most people prefer to base their evidence only off the canon sources.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-01-03 02:35pm

Well Captain welcome to the wonderful world of rabid brain dead trekies. You too can build a site like Darkstars, all you need is to get you hands on the power outputs of the SW weapons add a few numbers to the end of those numbers and say they are Trek weapons. Basically make shit up as you go, something B&B do regularily.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2003-01-03 03:54pm

Captain Jack Frank wrote:I think that the pages you gave me are more reasonable, but the one guy seems relaly pissed off at everyone he talks to. His evidence is good, but couldn't he be a little nicer? Just a thought. The other site is really good.

The tone of an argument has nothing to do with the argument's validity.

But here's something: if the Tehcnical Manual says that phasers have a low energy output, and that the torpedoes have a low output, and the SW books says that SW weapons have a very high energy output, how come these guys don't just say that SW has better tech? How can it be that difficult?

They don't want to admit that their precious Federation is primitive when compared to other sci-fi worlds like SW. They derive a LOT of pleasure from their fantasies about how their pet sci-fi world would beat up every other one. Its no different than arguing about which football team is better.

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2003-01-03 08:33pm

Captain Jack Frank wrote:I think that the pages you gave me are more reasonable, but the one guy seems relaly pissed off at everyone he talks to. His evidence is good, but couldn't he be a little nicer? Just a thought.

Hahahaha, thats soo funny, given that you are on his forum now

The other site is really good.

This guy was also hired by Lucasfilm, and it does appear that his site was one of the reasons for him being hired, I think that confirms his validity.

King Tiger · Post by **King Tiger** » 2003-01-03 10:11pm

Phil Skayhan wrote: Often you will find people citing the Star Wars Technical Commentaries
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

Wait. This ICS book was written by Curtis Saxton. That page is by Curtis Saxton.

He has to know a lot about SW if he was allowed to write an official book (and the site appears to be accurate.

Soontir C'boath · Post by **Soontir C'boath** » 2003-01-03 10:52pm

King Tiger wrote:
Phil Skayhan wrote: Often you will find people citing the Star Wars Technical Commentaries
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/

Wait. This ICS book was written by Curtis Saxton. That page is by Curtis Saxton.

He has to know a lot about SW if he was allowed to write an official book (and the site appears to be accurate.

Oh WOW isn't that an amazing conclusion.

Cyaround,
Jason

Admiral_K · Post by **Admiral_K** » 2003-01-03 11:38pm

OMG Does darkstar actually believe the bullshit he put on his site? I mean COME ON.

In the areas where he can't fudge things around and make up pathetic technobabular excuses instead of accepting the raw firepower he just uses ????. He equates the hypderdrive to HIGH WARP??? He says there are reltatively FEW androids in the empire "as sentient as c3p0 and R2D2"????

Geeze No way someone could possibly be this deluded....

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-01-04 12:19am

Admiral_K wrote:OMG Does darkstar actually believe the bullshit he put on his site? I mean COME ON.

In the areas where he can't fudge things around and make up pathetic technobabular excuses instead of accepting the raw firepower he just uses ????. He equates the hypderdrive to HIGH WARP??? He says there are reltatively FEW androids in the empire "as sentient as c3p0 and R2D2"????

Geeze No way someone could possibly be this deluded....

Don't worry. That claim of his will get what's coming to it in the reasonably near future.