And what I mean by "game mechanics are not canon" is that the actual gameplay cannot be used for technical analysis. That is totally different than the definition of the EU.
Even you should know that. It's embarassing that you even posted that.
Domes atop ISD
Moderator: Vympel
-
Spanky The Dolphin
- Mammy Two-Shoes
- Posts: 30776
- Joined: 2002-07-05 05:45pm
- Location: Reykjavík, Iceland (not really)
Correct, although perhaps I would have been a little more politeSpanky The Dolphin wrote:EU is canonical, it's just that Absolute Canon is higher.
But what the fuck do you know, anyway? You're from SB.
And actually, EU is considered official as opposed to canon, but Lucas has said that, as long as the EU doesn't contradict canon, it can be used in a semi-canonical manner. As opposed to Star Trek, where their Extended Universe can't be used.
Our finned friend brings up a good point. The games were designed for playablility, so they shouldn't be taken too seriously. How else would a lonely X-Wing or two have a shot in Hadies agaist an ISD, if there were no easy target to destroy? The fact remains that there are equally compelling arguments for the domes being whatever folks claim them to be. Frankly, I believe it will take a new ICS book to finally put this debate to bed. I personally stand by my belief that they are sensor domes. Interestingly, I posted the same poll on SB, and most there are convinced they're shield generators, which leads me to believe the site is somewhat saturated with Trekkies (who tend to lean in the direction of asserting the domes to be shield generators).greenmm wrote:Correct, although perhaps I would have been a little more politeSpanky The Dolphin wrote:EU is canonical, it's just that Absolute Canon is higher.
But what the fuck do you know, anyway? You're from SB.
And actually, EU is considered official as opposed to canon, but Lucas has said that, as long as the EU doesn't contradict canon, it can be used in a semi-canonical manner. As opposed to Star Trek, where their Extended Universe can't be used.
-
nightmare
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
- Location: Here. Sometimes there.
Lord Edam wrotes:
1) ONE of The Executor's globes was destroyed *after* it's shields was downed. It has many more than two.
irrelevant. When the globe was destroyed does not allow us to determine what the globe does.
I was making a general statement, so it was rather intended at the A-Wing fallacy. But for you, I repeat, more than two.
2) An ISD is shown in ROTJ with bridge on fire, domes ok.
irrelevant. Shields can be dropped/drained and later re-established. You can remove the shields without destroying the shield equipment. This could be one of those examples.
Possible but highly unlikely. It should be the first target once the shield is down.
3) ISDs doesn't have as many globes as they do number of shields. (6?)
secondary shield emitters, or the globes are able to project multiple independent shields from the same location
Unsupported speculation.
4) Other ships doesn't have such domes, but they do have shields.
Irrelevant. Other ships don't use the exact same shield system.
"by this logic", some sports cars have their exhausts in chrome pipes down the side of the car - does this mean any car without chrome pipes down the side is lacking an exhaust?
It proves that shield generators are internal on practically all SW ships. Since there is no good reason for a different design, we can draw the conclusion that it is in fact not different, since there is no canon proof for a difference. If you chose to call that irrelevant, fine by me.. it's just your opinion.
5) Geoffry Mandels blueprint
Geoff Mandel has stated his 1978 Imperator class blueprints were just something he did in his spare time. They were in no way sanctioned by Lucas(/film/books/arts).
(http://www.trek-wars.info/mandel.eml.txt)
I know he did. Doesn't matter. He had the insight, thus it shows what they are intended to be.
In other words, they are no more admissable in these debates than that fine piece of fanfic, Portal.
Ok, now I know something is wrong in there..
6) STAR WARS Incredible Cross Sections tells they are targeting systems.
Star Wars Incredbile Cross Sections does not label the domes at all. It labels the array between the domes.
How about you take that up with Saxton, since he's the one who writes it. http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes Maybe "indicate" would ring better in your nitpicky ears..
7) The MF clinging to the back of the tower to vanish proves they are some kind of sensors. Just look at the angle.
No, the Mf clinging to the back of the tower to vanish shows that wherever the sensors are they can't see the back of the tower. The only way to conclude from this the domes are sensors is if you start off assuming the domes are sensors.
And the logical position for those sensors would be? Thanks for proving my argument.
X-Wing The Bacta War
X-wing Iron Fist
More offical stuff than that says they are shield generators, bring them in too. It doesn't matter; official sources differ, canon show they can't be shields. End of story.
Anyone believing the globes are shield generators have the deductive abilities of a rock.
Or are simply willing to accept the truth without resorting to fanart, sophistry and speculation
Of your eight reasons why the domes are sensor domes, one is an outright lie (SW:ICS), one is just fanart(Mandel), three are irrelevant, one requires you to assume what you are claiming, and one is about as meaningful as me pointing out "star wars" proves they are shield domes.
Care to try again?
I note that you have no arguments, only try to pick on mine. No, I think I have spent more time than this is worth already. And please be more careful of what you call a lie, or I just might be coaxed into digging up some of your old threads.
1) ONE of The Executor's globes was destroyed *after* it's shields was downed. It has many more than two.
irrelevant. When the globe was destroyed does not allow us to determine what the globe does.
I was making a general statement, so it was rather intended at the A-Wing fallacy. But for you, I repeat, more than two.
2) An ISD is shown in ROTJ with bridge on fire, domes ok.
irrelevant. Shields can be dropped/drained and later re-established. You can remove the shields without destroying the shield equipment. This could be one of those examples.
Possible but highly unlikely. It should be the first target once the shield is down.
3) ISDs doesn't have as many globes as they do number of shields. (6?)
secondary shield emitters, or the globes are able to project multiple independent shields from the same location
Unsupported speculation.
4) Other ships doesn't have such domes, but they do have shields.
Irrelevant. Other ships don't use the exact same shield system.
"by this logic", some sports cars have their exhausts in chrome pipes down the side of the car - does this mean any car without chrome pipes down the side is lacking an exhaust?
It proves that shield generators are internal on practically all SW ships. Since there is no good reason for a different design, we can draw the conclusion that it is in fact not different, since there is no canon proof for a difference. If you chose to call that irrelevant, fine by me.. it's just your opinion.
5) Geoffry Mandels blueprint
Geoff Mandel has stated his 1978 Imperator class blueprints were just something he did in his spare time. They were in no way sanctioned by Lucas(/film/books/arts).
(http://www.trek-wars.info/mandel.eml.txt)
I know he did. Doesn't matter. He had the insight, thus it shows what they are intended to be.
In other words, they are no more admissable in these debates than that fine piece of fanfic, Portal.
Ok, now I know something is wrong in there..
6) STAR WARS Incredible Cross Sections tells they are targeting systems.
Star Wars Incredbile Cross Sections does not label the domes at all. It labels the array between the domes.
How about you take that up with Saxton, since he's the one who writes it. http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes Maybe "indicate" would ring better in your nitpicky ears..
7) The MF clinging to the back of the tower to vanish proves they are some kind of sensors. Just look at the angle.
No, the Mf clinging to the back of the tower to vanish shows that wherever the sensors are they can't see the back of the tower. The only way to conclude from this the domes are sensors is if you start off assuming the domes are sensors.
And the logical position for those sensors would be? Thanks for proving my argument.
X-Wing The Bacta War
X-wing Iron Fist
More offical stuff than that says they are shield generators, bring them in too. It doesn't matter; official sources differ, canon show they can't be shields. End of story.
Anyone believing the globes are shield generators have the deductive abilities of a rock.
Or are simply willing to accept the truth without resorting to fanart, sophistry and speculation
Of your eight reasons why the domes are sensor domes, one is an outright lie (SW:ICS), one is just fanart(Mandel), three are irrelevant, one requires you to assume what you are claiming, and one is about as meaningful as me pointing out "star wars" proves they are shield domes.
Care to try again?
I note that you have no arguments, only try to pick on mine. No, I think I have spent more time than this is worth already. And please be more careful of what you call a lie, or I just might be coaxed into digging up some of your old threads.
the number of domes is also irrelevant. How many domes there are on a ship doesn't tell us what the two on the bridge do.nightmare wrote:irrelevant. When the globe was destroyed does not allow us to determine what the globe does.
I was making a general statement, so it was rather intended at the A-Wing fallacy. But for you, I repeat, more than two.
in your opinion. Of course, if the ship is killed after the shields drop but before someone manages to destroy the shield systems specifically it doesn't really matter, does it.
irrelevant. Shields can be dropped/drained and later re-established. You can remove the shields without destroying the shield equipment. This could be one of those examples.
Possible but highly unlikely. It should be the first target once the shield is down.
your reasoning here is identical to that leading from the SSD's shield failure to teh domes being shield domes. In one, the destruction of the domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are shields. In the other, the continued existence of hte domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are not shields. Same reasoning, opposite (wrong) conclusions.
X-wings and Y-wings have multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systmes. the MF has multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systems. Clearly, this is an established ability in Star Wars.
secondary shield emitters, or the globes are able to project multiple independent shields from the same location
Unsupported speculation.
It would also be entirely reasonable to assume certain key systems, such as communications, sensor, shields, command systems etc. have secondaries in place in case the primaries fail.
Please review my post in the previous thread for the reasons why this point is wrong.
Irrelevant. Other ships don't use the exact same shield system.
"by this logic", some sports cars have their exhausts in chrome pipes down the side of the car - does this mean any car without chrome pipes down the side is lacking an exhaust?
It proves that shield generators are internal on practically all SW ships.
other than different shield systems coming from different manufacturers and/or having different abilities requiring differing design and/or having different power requiring different design and/or other unknown design considerations that would affect the location and external appearance of the shield systems & their enclosurs you mean?Since there is no good reason for a different design
the shields on X- and Y-wings are different from each other and from those of the MF, which are different from those on Slave-I, which are different from those on a Neb-B, which are different from those on MC cruisers which are different from those on ISDs.
not every shield will appear teh same, or act the same.
The fact that no other ship uses teh exact same shield system does not allow us to conclude what the domes are for in any way whatsoever.
Yes, it does. One of the eight reasons you gave for official statements being wrong was fanart. you tried to pass it off as a genuine reason to ignore official information.
Geoff Mandel has stated his 1978 Imperator class blueprints were just something he did in his spare time. They were in no way sanctioned by Lucas(/film/books/arts).
(http://www.trek-wars.info/mandel.eml.txt)
I know he did. Doesn't matter
No, the wishes of the creators, enshrined in officially authorised publications, show what the domes are intended to be. Fanart made with no interaction with teh designers and not sanctioned/authorised in any way is entirely useless to deciding what the domes do.He had the insight, thus it shows what they are intended to be.
I could draw a picture labelling the domes coffee makers and it would be as valid.
1. - Star Wars: Incredible Cross Sections was written by Dr David West Reynolds, not Dr Curtis Saxton. You can see this yourself by looking athte cover of the book, or looking it up on amazon.com.
Star Wars Incredbile Cross Sections does not label the domes at all. It labels the array between the domes.
How about you take that up with Saxton, since he's the one who writes it.
2. - I don't need to take it up with saxton at all. I have the book nfront of me. Anyone who has the book can see for themselves. Those who don't can pop down to their local bookstore and look for themselves. The diagram of hte ISd in SW:ICS does not label the domes in any way.
The problems with Dr Saxton's opinion have been explained in my previous post. he uses non-sanctioned fanart, speculation and sophistry to refute many official sources specifying what the domes do.
your opinion as to what SW:ICS indicates cannot overule many official sources specifying otherwise.Maybe "indicate" would ring better in your nitpicky ears..
dealt with in my previous post
No, the Mf clinging to the back of the tower to vanish shows that wherever the sensors are they can't see the back of the tower. The only way to conclude from this the domes are sensors is if you start off assuming the domes are sensors.
And the logical position for those sensors would be?
you have no argument. you rely on inadmissable sources and unsupportable supposition.Thanks for proving my argument.
already have.More offical stuff than that says they are shield generators, bring them in too.
The only official source provided was the quote from The Bacta War by HDS, which did not specifically mention the domes on top of the bridge but rather other sensor domes and gunnery towers scattered over the hull of the ship.It doesn't matter; official sources differ,
If you ahve more official information proving the domes are sensor domes please post it.
The only way canon shows the domes can't be shields is if you start out assuming the domes are something other than shields to begin with.canon show they can't be shields. End of story.
my argument is the official information that you accept shows the domes are shield domes.I note that you have no arguments, only try to pick on mine.
Your argument is that this information is wrong because of eight reasons - eight reasons I have shown to be either lies, inadmissable, or based on the same faulty logic that most people apply to the destruction of the SSD in RotJ.
-
nightmare
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1539
- Joined: 2002-07-26 11:07am
- Location: Here. Sometimes there.
the number of domes is also irrelevant. How many domes there are on a ship doesn't tell us what the two on the bridge do.
I'm starting to think that you actually belive the stuff you write. Maybe you're unable to think in anything but spirals or something. You just amused me by killing your own argument.
-----
BY YOUR OWN THEORY, those unaffected domes could have protected the bridge, IF THEY WERE SHIELD GENERATORS. Still claim the number is irrelevant? How quaint
irrelevant. Shields can be dropped/drained and later re-established. You can remove the shields without destroying the shield equipment. This could be one of those examples.
Possible but highly unlikely. It should be the first target once the shield is down.
in your opinion. Of course, if the ship is killed after the shields drop but before someone manages to destroy the shield systems specifically it doesn't really matter, does it.
your reasoning here is identical to that leading from the SSD's shield failure to teh domes being shield domes. In one, the destruction of the domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are shields. In the other, the continued existence of hte domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are not shields. Same reasoning, opposite (wrong) conclusions.
-----
Please don't make assumptions about my reasoning. It's painfully obvious that you don't get my reasoning at all. Again, I have to point you to the fact that there are more than two domes. Still fail to make the connection?
secondary shield emitters, or the globes are able to project multiple independent shields from the same location
Unsupported speculation.
X-wings and Y-wings have multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systmes. the MF has multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systems. Clearly, this is an established ability in Star Wars.
It would also be entirely reasonable to assume certain key systems, such as communications, sensor, shields, command systems etc. have secondaries in place in case the primaries fail.
-----
Ok, so now you made it supported speculation. Well, that's an improvement, but you fail to see that your own theory kills your own argument above.
Irrelevant. Other ships don't use the exact same shield system.
"by this logic", some sports cars have their exhausts in chrome pipes down the side of the car - does this mean any car without chrome pipes down the side is lacking an exhaust?
It proves that shield generators are internal on practically all SW ships.
Please review my post in the previous thread for the reasons why this point is wrong.
-----
All you prove with that reasoning is that it's not necessarily true, you have no proof that my reasoning is any more wrong than yours.
Since there is no good reason for a different design
other than different shield systems coming from different manufacturers and/or having different abilities requiring differing design and/or having different power requiring different design and/or other unknown design considerations that would affect the location and external appearance of the shield systems & their enclosurs you mean?
the shields on X- and Y-wings are different from each other and from those of the MF, which are different from those on Slave-I, which are different from those on a Neb-B, which are different from those on MC cruisers which are different from those on ISDs.
not every shield will appear teh same, or act the same.
The fact that no other ship uses teh exact same shield system does not allow us to conclude what the domes are for in any way whatsoever.
Let me explain exactly why that you're wrong then. a) The position of the domes are totally wrong for shield generators, as they could be placed anywhere on the ship, or inside it, with better effect. b) The position is prefect for sensor systems, and this argument is proven by the Millennium Falcon. You lose.
Geoffrey Mandel has stated his 1978 Imperator class blueprints were just something he did in his spare time. They were in no way sanctioned by Lucas(/film/books/arts).
(http://www.trek-wars.info/mandel.eml.txt)
I know he did. Doesn't matter
Yes, it does. One of the eight reasons you gave for official statements being wrong was fanart. you tried to pass it off as a genuine reason to ignore official information.
-----
Fanart. In case you didn't notice, they guy worked for Lucasarts. Don't snip my argument next time. Sure, the material was never officially released from Lucasarts, and I never claimed it was. I do claim that it proves the original intent for the "domes" better than any later released material. If you don't like it, fine. Just don't try to make it like I said something I never did.
He had the insight, thus it shows what they are intended to be.
No, the wishes of the creators, enshrined in officially authorised publications, show what the domes are intended to be. Fanart made with no interaction with teh designers and not sanctioned/authorised in any way is entirely useless to deciding what the domes do.
I could draw a picture labelling the domes coffee makers and it would be as valid.
-----
If you worked for lucasarts at the time and made the picture before any later material. But you didn't.
Star Wars Incredbile Cross Sections does not label the domes at all. It labels the array between the domes.
How about you take that up with Saxton, since he's the one who writes it.
1. - Star Wars: Incredible Cross Sections was written by Dr David West Reynolds, not Dr Curtis Saxton. You can see this yourself by looking athte cover of the book, or looking it up on amazon.com.
2. - I don't need to take it up with saxton at all. I have the book nfront of me. Anyone who has the book can see for themselves. Those who don't can pop down to their local bookstore and look for themselves. The diagram of hte ISd in SW:ICS does not label the domes in any way.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes
The problems with Dr Saxton's opinion have been explained in my previous post. he uses non-sanctioned fanart, speculation and sophistry to refute many official sources specifying what the domes do.
Maybe "indicate" would ring better in your nitpicky ears..
Your opinion as to what SW:ICS indicates cannot overule many official sources specifying otherwise.
-----
I concede that my opinion is below official sources. Like I needed to point that out. However, if one official source says they are shields, while another says they are sensors, you can't automatically claim one rules the other. It takes analysis to separate them, which is what I'm trying to do here.
No, the Mf clinging to the back of the tower to vanish shows that wherever the sensors are they can't see the back of the tower. The only way to conclude from this the domes are sensors is if you start off assuming the domes are sensors.
And the logical position for those sensors would be?
dealt with in my previous post
(pasted in argument)
It would be even more beneficial to have these sensors located on the far port & starboard corners of the vessle. This way you have maximum coverage up, down, forwards and backwards, and at least 50% coveragage for the entire left & right views, and in most cases greater than 50%.
-----
And that's your most logical position? Maybe you didn't notice a few things, such as that would leave the entire ship a blind area plus probably interference by proximity to ion engines. No, the best spots are on top of the bridge, plus the highest protrusion on the middle of the ventral surface. Why then not place domes at the bottom of the ship? Because it doesn't need long-range sensors there. It has no heavy guns on the ventral side. I'd like to see you explain that better.. but I'm not going to continue this.
Thanks for proving my argument.
you have no argument. you rely on inadmissable sources and unsupportable supposition.
-----
ROFL! *I* have no argument? You're the one without arguments. Thanks for conceeding
More offical stuff than that says they are shield generators, bring them in too.
already have.
It doesn't matter; official sources differ,
The only official source provided was the quote from The Bacta War by HDS, which did not specifically mention the domes on top of the bridge but rather other sensor domes and gunnery towers scattered over the hull of the ship.
If you ahve more official information proving the domes are sensor domes please post it.
-----
I don't need to, since canon does the work.
canon show they can't be shields. End of story.
The only way canon shows the domes can't be shields is if you start out assuming the domes are something other than shields to begin with.
-----
Already showed you that your own theory shoots you down. Again: More than one dome. Want a picture?
I note that you have no arguments, only try to pick on mine.
my argument is the official information that you accept shows the domes are shield domes.
----
Not all of it, mind you. And canon overrules it.
Your argument is that this information is wrong because of eight reasons - eight reasons I have shown to be either lies, inadmissable, or based on the same faulty logic that most people apply to the destruction of the SSD in RotJ.
-----
I don't see any logic at all from you. You claim certain official sources takes precedence, and you have no explanation on why Executor's shields were downed while it still had multiple functioning domes, reinforced by the ISD with burning bridge and whole domes. In fact, your own arguments work against you.
I will make no further post in this so-called debate, and I didn't intend to make this one either. I just found it highly amusing that you start to kill your own arguments. It's not unlike running in smaller and smaller circles. Indeed, I see no point in running around with you further.
I'm starting to think that you actually belive the stuff you write. Maybe you're unable to think in anything but spirals or something. You just amused me by killing your own argument.
-----
BY YOUR OWN THEORY, those unaffected domes could have protected the bridge, IF THEY WERE SHIELD GENERATORS. Still claim the number is irrelevant? How quaint
irrelevant. Shields can be dropped/drained and later re-established. You can remove the shields without destroying the shield equipment. This could be one of those examples.
Possible but highly unlikely. It should be the first target once the shield is down.
in your opinion. Of course, if the ship is killed after the shields drop but before someone manages to destroy the shield systems specifically it doesn't really matter, does it.
your reasoning here is identical to that leading from the SSD's shield failure to teh domes being shield domes. In one, the destruction of the domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are shields. In the other, the continued existence of hte domes coinciding with shield failure is taken to mean they are not shields. Same reasoning, opposite (wrong) conclusions.
-----
Please don't make assumptions about my reasoning. It's painfully obvious that you don't get my reasoning at all. Again, I have to point you to the fact that there are more than two domes. Still fail to make the connection?
secondary shield emitters, or the globes are able to project multiple independent shields from the same location
Unsupported speculation.
X-wings and Y-wings have multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systmes. the MF has multiple independent shield areas generated from the same systems. Clearly, this is an established ability in Star Wars.
It would also be entirely reasonable to assume certain key systems, such as communications, sensor, shields, command systems etc. have secondaries in place in case the primaries fail.
-----
Ok, so now you made it supported speculation. Well, that's an improvement, but you fail to see that your own theory kills your own argument above.
Irrelevant. Other ships don't use the exact same shield system.
"by this logic", some sports cars have their exhausts in chrome pipes down the side of the car - does this mean any car without chrome pipes down the side is lacking an exhaust?
It proves that shield generators are internal on practically all SW ships.
Please review my post in the previous thread for the reasons why this point is wrong.
-----
All you prove with that reasoning is that it's not necessarily true, you have no proof that my reasoning is any more wrong than yours.
Since there is no good reason for a different design
other than different shield systems coming from different manufacturers and/or having different abilities requiring differing design and/or having different power requiring different design and/or other unknown design considerations that would affect the location and external appearance of the shield systems & their enclosurs you mean?
the shields on X- and Y-wings are different from each other and from those of the MF, which are different from those on Slave-I, which are different from those on a Neb-B, which are different from those on MC cruisers which are different from those on ISDs.
not every shield will appear teh same, or act the same.
The fact that no other ship uses teh exact same shield system does not allow us to conclude what the domes are for in any way whatsoever.
Let me explain exactly why that you're wrong then. a) The position of the domes are totally wrong for shield generators, as they could be placed anywhere on the ship, or inside it, with better effect. b) The position is prefect for sensor systems, and this argument is proven by the Millennium Falcon. You lose.
Geoffrey Mandel has stated his 1978 Imperator class blueprints were just something he did in his spare time. They were in no way sanctioned by Lucas(/film/books/arts).
(http://www.trek-wars.info/mandel.eml.txt)
I know he did. Doesn't matter
Yes, it does. One of the eight reasons you gave for official statements being wrong was fanart. you tried to pass it off as a genuine reason to ignore official information.
-----
Fanart. In case you didn't notice, they guy worked for Lucasarts. Don't snip my argument next time. Sure, the material was never officially released from Lucasarts, and I never claimed it was. I do claim that it proves the original intent for the "domes" better than any later released material. If you don't like it, fine. Just don't try to make it like I said something I never did.
He had the insight, thus it shows what they are intended to be.
No, the wishes of the creators, enshrined in officially authorised publications, show what the domes are intended to be. Fanart made with no interaction with teh designers and not sanctioned/authorised in any way is entirely useless to deciding what the domes do.
I could draw a picture labelling the domes coffee makers and it would be as valid.
-----
If you worked for lucasarts at the time and made the picture before any later material. But you didn't.
Star Wars Incredbile Cross Sections does not label the domes at all. It labels the array between the domes.
How about you take that up with Saxton, since he's the one who writes it.
1. - Star Wars: Incredible Cross Sections was written by Dr David West Reynolds, not Dr Curtis Saxton. You can see this yourself by looking athte cover of the book, or looking it up on amazon.com.
2. - I don't need to take it up with saxton at all. I have the book nfront of me. Anyone who has the book can see for themselves. Those who don't can pop down to their local bookstore and look for themselves. The diagram of hte ISd in SW:ICS does not label the domes in any way.
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes
The problems with Dr Saxton's opinion have been explained in my previous post. he uses non-sanctioned fanart, speculation and sophistry to refute many official sources specifying what the domes do.
Maybe "indicate" would ring better in your nitpicky ears..
Your opinion as to what SW:ICS indicates cannot overule many official sources specifying otherwise.
-----
I concede that my opinion is below official sources. Like I needed to point that out. However, if one official source says they are shields, while another says they are sensors, you can't automatically claim one rules the other. It takes analysis to separate them, which is what I'm trying to do here.
No, the Mf clinging to the back of the tower to vanish shows that wherever the sensors are they can't see the back of the tower. The only way to conclude from this the domes are sensors is if you start off assuming the domes are sensors.
And the logical position for those sensors would be?
dealt with in my previous post
(pasted in argument)
It would be even more beneficial to have these sensors located on the far port & starboard corners of the vessle. This way you have maximum coverage up, down, forwards and backwards, and at least 50% coveragage for the entire left & right views, and in most cases greater than 50%.
-----
And that's your most logical position? Maybe you didn't notice a few things, such as that would leave the entire ship a blind area plus probably interference by proximity to ion engines. No, the best spots are on top of the bridge, plus the highest protrusion on the middle of the ventral surface. Why then not place domes at the bottom of the ship? Because it doesn't need long-range sensors there. It has no heavy guns on the ventral side. I'd like to see you explain that better.. but I'm not going to continue this.
Thanks for proving my argument.
you have no argument. you rely on inadmissable sources and unsupportable supposition.
-----
ROFL! *I* have no argument? You're the one without arguments. Thanks for conceeding
More offical stuff than that says they are shield generators, bring them in too.
already have.
It doesn't matter; official sources differ,
The only official source provided was the quote from The Bacta War by HDS, which did not specifically mention the domes on top of the bridge but rather other sensor domes and gunnery towers scattered over the hull of the ship.
If you ahve more official information proving the domes are sensor domes please post it.
-----
I don't need to, since canon does the work.
canon show they can't be shields. End of story.
The only way canon shows the domes can't be shields is if you start out assuming the domes are something other than shields to begin with.
-----
Already showed you that your own theory shoots you down. Again: More than one dome. Want a picture?
I note that you have no arguments, only try to pick on mine.
my argument is the official information that you accept shows the domes are shield domes.
----
Not all of it, mind you. And canon overrules it.
Your argument is that this information is wrong because of eight reasons - eight reasons I have shown to be either lies, inadmissable, or based on the same faulty logic that most people apply to the destruction of the SSD in RotJ.
-----
I don't see any logic at all from you. You claim certain official sources takes precedence, and you have no explanation on why Executor's shields were downed while it still had multiple functioning domes, reinforced by the ISD with burning bridge and whole domes. In fact, your own arguments work against you.
I will make no further post in this so-called debate, and I didn't intend to make this one either. I just found it highly amusing that you start to kill your own arguments. It's not unlike running in smaller and smaller circles. Indeed, I see no point in running around with you further.
-
Guest
ok, those globes are shield generators, in several of the X-Wing books Wedge Antillies comes up with the idea of blowing them up to bring down the shields, in fact thats the whole point of a Wraith/Hawk Bat mission when the Razor's Kiss was destroyed. In various sites i have seen these dones described as shield generarors and in later designes of Imp Star Deuses a 3rd Dome is build Mid-Ship
Here's an idea: FUCK the X-Wing books.
The EU is contradictory on the topic. Them being shield generators flies in the face of every other canonical Star Wars vessel which do not have them- there are no such strucutres of ANY size on any other vessel:
Nebulon-B Escort Frigate
Mon Calamari Cruisers
Corellian Corvettes
Rebel Transports
Acclamator (another KDY ship for pete's sake!!!!!!!!!!!)
Trade Fed battleship
Every small ship (fighters, millenium falcon, etc)
The REASON the A-Wings were seen destroying the domes was to DEMONSTRATE that the bridge shields were DOWN. If the bridge shields weren't down, things WOULDN'T BE EXPLODING ON THE BRIDGE.
The EU is contradictory on the topic. Them being shield generators flies in the face of every other canonical Star Wars vessel which do not have them- there are no such strucutres of ANY size on any other vessel:
Nebulon-B Escort Frigate
Mon Calamari Cruisers
Corellian Corvettes
Rebel Transports
Acclamator (another KDY ship for pete's sake!!!!!!!!!!!)
Trade Fed battleship
Every small ship (fighters, millenium falcon, etc)
The REASON the A-Wings were seen destroying the domes was to DEMONSTRATE that the bridge shields were DOWN. If the bridge shields weren't down, things WOULDN'T BE EXPLODING ON THE BRIDGE.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Sorry, son. Either you accept all the EU as canon or you dismiss it. You can't pick and choose, unless GL starts doing that.Vympel wrote:Here's an idea: FUCK the X-Wing books.
The EU is contradictory on the topic. Them being shield generators flies in the face of every other canonical Star Wars vessel which do not have them- there are no such strucutres of ANY size on any other vessel:
JADAFETWA
-
Utsanomiko
- The Legend Rado Tharadus
- Posts: 5079
- Joined: 2002-09-20 10:03pm
- Location: My personal sanctuary from the outside world
Well, when EU contradicts canon, it is dismissed. Don't you get it?IG-88E wrote:Sorry, son. Either you accept all the EU as canon or you dismiss it. You can't pick and choose, unless GL starts doing that.
Gameplay does not count as a technical source, as it intentionally fudges numbers and facts for the sake of the game. The whole theory is a brain-bug spawned from WEG 'research', propogated by games that Lucas Arts admits are generally below official in canonicity.
What the hell made you think it's Lucasfilm policy to accept all official material on the same level of canon? That's like a Darkstar statement.
By His Word...
Good point. My bad.Darth Utsanomiko wrote:Well, when EU contradicts canon, it is dismissed. Don't you get it?IG-88E wrote:Sorry, son. Either you accept all the EU as canon or you dismiss it. You can't pick and choose, unless GL starts doing that.
Not the point I made. Besides, this has been beaten to death by Spanky and myself.Gameplay does not count as a technical source, as it intentionally fudges numbers and facts for the sake of the game. The whole theory is a brain-bug spawned from WEG 'research', propogated by games that Lucas Arts admits are generally below official in canonicity.
The hell are you talking about? Lucasfilm policy is that the movies are canon, and all novels are EQUALLY canon to a lesser degree.What the hell made you think it's Lucasfilm policy to accept all official material on the same level of canon? That's like a Darkstar statement.
JADAFETWA
Wrong, Older Novels are overruled by newer onesThe hell are you talking about? Lucasfilm policy is that the movies are canon, and all novels are EQUALLY canon to a lesser degree.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
I meant...arg...that's not...oh, anyway...*bangs head on wall* I think I'll drop into a hole for a few days now...Mr Bean wrote:Wrong, Older Novels are overruled by newer onesThe hell are you talking about? Lucasfilm policy is that the movies are canon, and all novels are EQUALLY canon to a lesser degree.
JADAFETWA
-
Guest
-
Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
Incidentally, the X-Wing game states clearly that by the time of the Battle of Endor, ISD's had completely been retrofitted, and that the domes were no longer shield generators by then. Play the historical missions. I don't see why this is such a difficult topic. Even the GAMES agree that they are not shield generators.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
-
Guest
watch ROTJ
A-Wing blows up dome
"Sir we just lost the bridge deflector screen"
The Shalla Nelprin Destroys the domes on Razor's Kiss
"Sir Razor's Kiss Reports catastrophic loss of TOP SIDE SHIELDS"
I'm not saying that the 2 domes are the only shield generators but it's obvious that the dome contain some kind of shield generating power
A-Wing blows up dome
"Sir we just lost the bridge deflector screen"
The Shalla Nelprin Destroys the domes on Razor's Kiss
"Sir Razor's Kiss Reports catastrophic loss of TOP SIDE SHIELDS"
I'm not saying that the 2 domes are the only shield generators but it's obvious that the dome contain some kind of shield generating power
The real issue isn't whether the domes are shields or sensors, it's whether the domes are protected by the shields. If it is possible to take down an ISDs shields by blowing up the unprotected domes, then they are the worst capital ships in all of Star Wars, as none of the other warships have the same weakness.
"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
- Dan Barker
- Dan Barker
-
Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
No, in both those cases they could just as well be shield domes protected by the shields, and not projecting the shields. Thus, their destruction would be a SYMPTOM of the shields going down, but not a cause.Muad'Dib wrote:watch ROTJ
A-Wing blows up dome
"Sir we just lost the bridge deflector screen"
The Shalla Nelprin Destroys the domes on Razor's Kiss
"Sir Razor's Kiss Reports catastrophic loss of TOP SIDE SHIELDS"
I'm not saying that the 2 domes are the only shield generators but it's obvious that the dome contain some kind of shield generating power
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
-
Master of Ossus
- Darkest Knight
- Posts: 18213
- Joined: 2002-07-11 01:35am
- Location: California
The domes are protected by the shields. They are frequently hit while the shields are failing, which explains everything we see perfectly. Why is this difficult to understand?Akm72 wrote:The real issue isn't whether the domes are shields or sensors, it's whether the domes are protected by the shields. If it is possible to take down an ISDs shields by blowing up the unprotected domes, then they are the worst capital ships in all of Star Wars, as none of the other warships have the same weakness.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
Don't get your knickers in a twist; of course they're protected by the shields. The point is, as long as that is agreed, it dosn't really matter if they're shield generators, sensor domes or coke dispensors...Master of Ossus wrote:The domes are protected by the shields. They are frequently hit while the shields are failing, which explains everything we see perfectly. Why is this difficult to understand?
"Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down, down. Amen!" If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it."
- Dan Barker
- Dan Barker
"The shield generator's been hit!" - some guy pushing buttons
"Increase speed, drop down and reverse direction!" - Admiral Petit
"Watch, as I shoot up through my own shield!" - Luke
"Too late!!!" - a guy with a silly hat
I think you can plainly see using my referenced quotes that they are shield generators. If the Death Star can have a trench with a hole, if Achilles can have a heel, then an ISD can have shield balls on it's head.
"Increase speed, drop down and reverse direction!" - Admiral Petit
"Watch, as I shoot up through my own shield!" - Luke
"Too late!!!" - a guy with a silly hat
I think you can plainly see using my referenced quotes that they are shield generators. If the Death Star can have a trench with a hole, if Achilles can have a heel, then an ISD can have shield balls on it's head.
Aaaarrrrr!!!!!! Mateys!!! Swab my deck or I'll shoot you out of cannon!!! Into the sun!!!