Essential Guide to Vehicles and Ships flawed?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-04-23 04:46am

I don't own this book (copyright 1996), but I was flipping through it at my local bookstore today and the sizes of the SD's sounded off, and they showed the "shield globes" that everybody here says are something else.

Is this contradicted by higher canon, or are our justifications in fact non-official?

Somebody who's read this and other sources, please help... thanks!

(Sorry if this was posted elsewhere already, I couldnt' find it...)

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-04-23 04:49am

The book is severely flawed in many places. Some of the text is self-contradictory, the schematics are often over-simplified, and the sketches are often vague.

That said, it's a pretty cool book, and served as my introduction to the "technical" side of SW.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-23 06:50am

It's overridden by Canon and higher official sources (not to mention occasionally common sense).

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-23 09:14am

It is a decent source of background info and such, and for good schematics for SOME vessels, but, like any book, it has its flaws.

I bought it a long while back, and have found numerous errors and contradictions, but, I am sure they are to be found in anything.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-23 12:13pm

The copy of mine has pictures of the VSD on the ISD page, and ISD pictures on the VSD page.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-23 12:15pm

Kurgan wrote:I don't own this book (copyright 1996), but I was flipping through it at my local bookstore today and the sizes of the SD's sounded off, and they showed the "shield globes" that everybody here says are something else.

Is this contradicted by higher canon, or are our justifications in fact non-official?

Somebody who's read this and other sources, please help... thanks!

(Sorry if this was posted elsewhere already, I couldnt' find it...)

Substantial portions of the book have been overridden, but I use it as a reference.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-23 12:24pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It's overridden by Canon and higher official sources (not to mention occasionally common sense).

What official sources? What do they say?

The globes appear to be multi-purpose. The starwars.com Databank seems to support the idea that they're combination deflection and communication globes. Stackpole makes a subtle hint about them being sensor globes in The Bacta War, but he didn't state where they were when they were being fired at... he probably had to sneak that reference in.

Hmm, I wonder if the purpose of the globes are fixed, or if different ships can be equipped with different features by using different globes... Those with shield globes would have stronger shields by mounting more shield generators, others would have stronger communications and jamming capability, others would have improved sensors. That would mean Lusankya (and therefore its "twin," Executor) would have improved sensors, while Razor's Kiss would have had improved shields.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-23 12:30pm

The overridence of the Shield Dome Fallacy is mostly based on common sense. I've never seen an intelegent argument in the direction that they are shield generators, and those that say things like you just did are only kidding themselves.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-23 01:52pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The overridence of the Shield Dome Fallacy is mostly based on common sense.

Then why the mention of "higher official sources (not to mention occasionally common sense)" if what you really meant to say was "common sense and occasionally other official sources"? You're not being very consistent here...

I've never seen an intelegent argument in the direction that they are shield generators, and those that say things like you just did are only kidding themselves.

In other words, you consider direct official statements that the globes on certain ships are shield generators (though perhaps not the only shield generators) to be unintelligent. Correct?

Does this mean we can throw away any official statements that we can't immediately see the logic to, on the basis that they are stupid or unintelligent? Stuff that we just don't want to bother rationalizing? Sounds lazy and subjective to me. (Also sounds like what the anti-ICS2 crowd was saying about the lightspeed turbolasers... "it contradicts visuals, it must be wrong!")

I prefer to incorporate as much official as possible, and leaving the cry of "contradiction" as a last resort. Nothing in canon requires a specific function of the globes for events to make sense. Therefore official is not in contradiction of anything except "it shouldn't be that way 'cause it doesn't make sense on the surface." (And it's not like stupid design decisions haven't been made in real life or anything.)

Funny, Einstein fought against quantum theory because it didn't follow common sense... nevermind that the data agreed with quantum theory. Of course, you'll argue that research into quantum theory yielded "canon" data, while the data provided by SW's EU sources can be contradicted by "common sense," as long as it doesn't conflict with SW's canon data. Our methodologies are in conflict. I try to incorporate as much EU information as I can, while you are much more lenient on stating that there's a contradiction.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-23 01:57pm

I'd rather that you not twist my words and turn them into a blanket statement.

I was refering solely to the Sheild Dome Falacy. Don't act like I was applying it to everything.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-23 01:58pm

What makes the "Shield Dome Fallacy" such a special case?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2003-04-23 02:00pm

Because for one thing we have canon evidence that they're not shield-related. And there's the fact that no other vessels have sheild generators in a similar configuration. Then there's the analogy to the real life radome.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-23 02:34pm

The official justification for shield domes was flawed by a shitty interpretation of the events in ROTJ w/ the Executor.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-23 02:35pm

First off, canon is silent on the issue. It requires no specific interpretation of the globes' function in order for the events to make sense.

The Mandel blueprints call them long range scanners, so the Falcon's hiding from them in ESB doesn't amount to much, since they wouldn't focusing in at such a close range anyway. Solo would be more worried about the short-range scanners. For RotJ, the function of the globes is irrelevant; the shields had to fail for the globes to be hit. There is no requirement in either instance for the globes to be something other than shield generators. (Saying that canon speaks either way on the issue amounts to the argument that "canon doesn't say they are shield generators, therefore they must not be shield generators!")

Your other two points are circumstantial evidence and they fly in the face of EU data. Just because other vessels aren't equipped with generators that look similar doesn't mean the ISD can't be trying out something new (perhaps auxillary generators added as an afterthought; I don't think they're the main shield generators), or that the globes can't perform multiple functions.

Again, I ask, what is so special about the tower globes situation that makes you ignore direct official statements when doing just that is generally looked down upon in other areas? There is nothing to my knowledge that absolutely requires the globes serve some other purpose than shield genertaors. So what's with this switching around of standards (you heavily implied that you're only doing this for the globes)?

Darth Garden Gnome · Post by **Darth Garden Gnome** » 2003-04-23 03:30pm

The Mandel Blueprints (the original blueprints on the Imperial-Class Star Destroyer) label them as sensor domes. In one of the X-Wing games, a mission describes the Imperials moving the shield generators from the exterior to deep within the hull of the ISD.

And then we have the Stackpole books which label them as shield generators.

So we have official sources split in two on the matter. This is where common sense comes play.

Why on Earth would an ISD have its shield generators on the outside? Other SW vessels don't, like the Mon Cal Cruiser. There is no LOGICAL reason for it.

OTOH, many SW vessels have their sensors on the outside, the reason being its easier to get sensor readings when your sensors aren't buried under meters of armor.

EX: Leia's Correlian Corvette has its sensor dish on the outside. The Millenium Falcon too. So does the TF battleship. As does the Republic Diplomat ship from TPM. The Mon Cal Cruisers have them in big open blisters on their hull. The Nebulon-B Frigates sensors are on big antennas on its hull. Both the Dreadnaught and the Carrack-Cruiser have them as sensor dishes on their exterior too. The only ships that don't seem to have them are snub-fighters, because their armor isn't thick enough to hinder sensor readings!

So then either side has its official sources, but only one side has common sense too. Which is why sensor domes are the better theory.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-23 03:37pm

That book is the one, I believe, that led to my "Victory class cruiser" thread a few months ago. And why I thought that the two ships chasing the MF out of Tatooine could have been Victorys. Oh well.....

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2003-04-23 03:50pm

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:And then we have the Stackpole books which label them as shield generators.

Incorrect. Stackpole has a mention of "sensor domes" in The Bacta War, I don't recall him making mention of shield generators anywhere in his books in reference to the globes. Allston has them as "shield projectors" in Iron Fist (projectors are different from generators).

Having just looked at Iron Fist to confirm what I wrote, I think we're looking at a three-fold purpose for the globes. They contain equipment for long-range sensors (Mandel and Stackpole), communications (starwars.com Databank), and dorsal shield projectors (Allston). (Previously, I thought Allston said they were generators.)

The starwars.com Databank says they're communication and deflection towers, so there's already an official source stating multiple purposes. Including shield projection capabilities for the ones on the bridge tower simply rationalizes other sources without taking away the common-sense purposes mentioned elsewhere. (Placing the projectors there would increase protection for the globes, preventing comms and long-range sensors from being knocked out as easily.)

Anything that explicitly mentions "shield generators" can probably be attributed to a confusion regarding the difference between a projector and a generator.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-04-23 05:48pm

I actually like that explanation Mad. Also it doesn't mean the ISD has a super flaw, they could be one of many shield projectors all over the ship, and I bet all of the other Star Wars ships have to have External shield projectors, though I don't really have evidence, it would solve some constant arguments? Maybe someone could jump GL and beat him until he tells us what they are.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-04-23 06:03pm

The entire shield globe falacy is based on the interpretation that once a single globe was destroyed the Executor's shields failed (even though SSDs have IIRC EIGHT globes)

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-04-24 10:55am

The whole shield generators arguement seems to stem from dodgey editing in RotJ. Dispite what we think or say the average cinema goer is likley to believe that the globes are shield generators.

FettKyle · Post by **FettKyle** » 2003-04-24 01:51pm

The entire shield globe falacy is based on the interpretation that once a single globe was destroyed the Executor's shields failed

Actualy only the bridge deflectors went down. Funny how no one seem to detect the Awing come at the bridge except for the captain who saw it.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-04-27 04:41pm

That's an interesting point. What caused the bridge shields to go down in the first place? Cap ship fire?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-27 04:46pm

FettKyle wrote:Funny how no one seem to detect the Awing come at the bridge except for the captain who saw it.

Except all those gunners who shot at and hit it, notice how it was a flaming wreck when it impacted.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-04-27 04:50pm

Kurgan wrote:That's an interesting point. What caused the bridge shields to go down in the first place? Cap ship fire?

No, Ackbar ordered to concentrate all firepower on another Super Star Destroyer

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2003-04-28 07:27am

So the cap ships beat down the bridge shields by brute force, then an Xwing blows up some useless sensor domes, then an A-Wing crashes into the bridge windows before they can bring their bridge shield back up....

Boom! Bridge destroyed, ship out of control, sucked into DS II's surface, destroying the ship, and causing heavy damage to the DS II.

Correct?

Or would it be correct to say that the sensor domes are UNDER their own shield, which was beaten down by the cap ships, and by having fighters destroy the domes once they were exposed, it kept the bridge shields down, and then the rest happened?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Essential Guide to Vehicles and Ships flawed?

Essential Guide to Vehicles and Ships flawed?

Re: Essential Guide to Vehicles and Ships flawed?