StarDestroyer.Net BBS

These are some really great photos....I don't think I've ever seen the SD in this much detail before, and it's pretty amazing how much work the model makers went to to get it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in pictures such as this "http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/ ... yer061.jpg" and many others, aren't those tiny little black dots (more like holes) representative of windows, or are they just imperfections? They look like they could be windows to me. Assuming they are, it really helps to put things in perspective, at least for me. It's hard for the brain to imagine a mile long ship, how massive it would be (although the lego discussion on the subject helps), but this shows things in such great detail.

It also shows that there were a lot more windows on a Star Destroyer than I ever thought there were. I knew they had a few, but never that many (again, assuming they're windows)

And those aft guns just have to be guns, which is even more impressive. I really don't know if they're lighter than LTL, but it would make sense that they were LTLs, and not quad laser cannons to me. The ability for fighters to make attack runs on the aft part of the ship would probably be very limited due to the engine wash. Larger cap ships than a SD wouldn't probably be able to catch the ship at high speed, so the guns at the rear would be optimized for those few ships that could catch it, and could withstand the engine wash, aka corvettes and frigates.

Still, them there a lot of guns. I thought I saw a few other smaller implacements that may be the quad laser cannon turrets, but I think they're very debatable, considering their size.

nightmare wrote:This site was first posted by Shinova. Credit where credit is due.

Could you please direct me to the post? I couldn't find it in my initial checking to see if it had been noticed, and I'm having trouble locating Shinova's post now that I know it had been seen before.

Alan Bolte wrote:

nightmare wrote:This site was first posted by Shinova. Credit where credit is due.

Could you please direct me to the post? I couldn't find it in my initial checking to see if it had been noticed, and I'm having trouble locating Shinova's post now that I know it had been seen before.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=24352

He didn't beat you by much. Since most people seem to have missed it, it was good that you brought it up again. Personally, I I've seen that site a long time ago already, long time enough that I had forgotten about it.

That post is six minutes after mine, on the same day.

Hmm.. you are right. Odd, this is not what I read, neither the first time nor the second. Credits to you then. Oh well, I've seen it a couple years ago.

Howedar wrote:Well, thats a nice argument. Well I've seen the model, and they most certainly were!

So you either belief I am incapable of logically deciding between what is and isn't a turret close up on the real life model (implying I am an idiot, in other words) or that I am lying deliberately to some unknown end. Which is it?

So I suppose these masterful model builders used turrets off of another model just for shits and giggles, right?

So its impossible they might have converted what started out as turret guns to some other purpose. They HAVE to be turrets, no matter if they don't LOOK like turrets. (I notice you completely ignored the flat, rounded projections at the ends of the so-called "barrels" completely, despite having had them pointed out to you.)

I'm pointing out that, *having seen the model firsthand*, I have had a clearer observation of those so-called turrets. I can say *from my own experience* that they aren't gun turrets.

How would one control thrust from a hundred meters away on top of a plate of armor? For that matter, why would one choose to do so when we can see thrust vectoring systems on the engine nozzles themselves?

Forcefields operate in three dimensions, remember. They could be a kilometer away and you could still control the thrust with a sufficient-sized field. They could assist with or be part of the thrust vectoring system on the nozzles for all we know - the Falcon has "flaps" like that on its rear engine array as well, IIRC the model correctly.

I should note that even if I am wrong in my theory about the purpose of those flaps (which I might very well be), that still doesn't change the fact they aren't turrets. Observation of the model in real life doesn't change this.

You're grasping at straws. The fact of the matter is, the structures are visually fucking identical to the 5.25" turrets on the KGV, as well they should because they were ripped right out of a model kit.

Ironically, I bet we could check with Saxton, whom I believe has *seen* the model, and I bet he'll agree with me, if you care to ask him.

But I keep forgetting that "real life observation of the model" appears to be subordinate to "what I think I can recognize from a model kit from a secondhand picture" in your mind.

I agree that the inner boxes could conceivably have a propulsion-related purpose, but I don't see what the turrets would do when they don't even have a line of sight to the engines.

The "turrets" control the flaps (which they are anchored to, I repeat YET AGAIN, by those flat rounded projections Spanky has noticed.) And I remind you the inner "arms" are symmetrical to the outer "turrets", and that it makes sense to brace those flaps on both sides. They don't *need* to have line of sight if they generate a field effect (such as an electromagnetic field)

Addtionally, a field effect back there could very well explain the fact the Falcon escaped notice in TESB - the field could obscure sensor observation at that angle - which IS consistent with EU evidence from novels (Ambush aat Corellia suggests all ships have a sensor blind spot where the engines are, and many of the TESB-era sources suggest that the place Han hid was in fact a sensor blind spot on the ISD.) In fact, if there were turrets back there they should have had perfect line of sight on the Falcon!

This ignores the oddity of having a row of turrets preserved on that part of the ship, but no other turrets like them anywhere else (or not having any of them fall off.), but thats only a secondary point.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be seeing here. I see 5.25x2 turrets stuck onto an ISD, completely unmodified.

The point about "flat, rounded projections attached to the ends and anchored to the panels" completely escaped your notice, did it?

The image quality isn't quite that good. Whatever barrel remnants remain would be inside those shadowed areas on the fronts of the turrets. Certainly I've seen other ISD pictures with gun barrels broken off (although I think it was the ISD1 model).

I was referring to the direct observation of the model from close up. But I keep forgetting that that takes secondary importance in your mind compared to pictures of said model.

Editted because I'm fucking blind.

Connor MacLeod wrote: So you either belief I am incapable of logically deciding between what is and isn't a turret close up on the real life model (implying I am an idiot, in other words) or that I am lying deliberately to some unknown end. Which is it?

The former. Saying that they aren't turrets "just because" is a shitty argument.

So its impossible they might have converted what started out as turret guns to some other purpose. They HAVE to be turrets, no matter if they don't LOOK like turrets. (I notice you completely ignored the flat, rounded projections at the ends of the so-called "barrels" completely, despite having had them pointed out to you.)

Yes, I see them now. I thought you were talking about something considerably smaller, and that the objects that are on the ends of the barrels (assuming that they are in fact on the ends of the barrels) were surface features. I conceed the argument.

I'm pointing out that, *having seen the model firsthand*, I have had a clearer observation of those so-called turrets. I can say *from my own experience* that they aren't gun turrets.

And now seeing that those objects are on the barrels themselves, I probably agree with you.

Forcefields operate in three dimensions, remember. They could be a kilometer away and you could still control the thrust with a sufficient-sized field.

Yes, but it would be rather daft to put them a klick away, because they'd need to put out additional field strength without any measurable gain.

They could assist with or be part of the thrust vectoring system on the nozzles for all we know - the Falcon has "flaps" like that on its rear engine array as well, IIRC the model correctly.

I would expect that of the objects on the inside of the back flap, but not the outside. They don't look particularly strongly built.

I should note that even if I am wrong in my theory about the purpose of those flaps (which I might very well be), that still doesn't change the fact they aren't turrets. Observation of the model in real life doesn't change this.

I'm not ready to say that they aren't turrets, but they certainly are not as clear-cut as I first thought.

Ironically, I bet we could check with Saxton, whom I believe has *seen* the model, and I bet he'll agree with me, if you care to ask him.

Quite possibly.

But I keep forgetting that "real life observation of the model" appears to be subordinate to "what I think I can recognize from a model kit from a secondhand picture" in your mind.

As far as I could tell, you were saying that they weren't turrets just because you say so, and the round objects on the ends of the barrels were you being dilusional. I did not think you were referring to the round objects fully a quarter the size of the turret. And for that, I apologize.

Still, I will ultimately take my observations over someone else's, no matter how highly I hold their observations.

The "turrets" control the flaps (which they are anchored to, I repeat YET AGAIN, by those flat rounded projections Spanky has noticed.)

Yes, I fucking see them. I'm not Darkstar.

And I remind you the inner "arms" are symmetrical to the outer "turrets", and that it makes sense to brace those flaps on both sides.

The structures on the outside certainly don't look like structural bracing.

They don't *need* to have line of sight if they generate a field effect (such as an electromagnetic field)

No, but I see no reason to place them farther from the engines than they need to be.

Addtionally, a field effect back there could very well explain the fact the Falcon escaped notice in TESB - the field could obscure sensor observation at that angle - which IS consistent with EU evidence from novels (Ambush aat Corellia suggests all ships have a sensor blind spot where the engines are, and many of the TESB-era sources suggest that the place Han hid was in fact a sensor blind spot on the ISD.)

An interesting theory.

In fact, if there were turrets back there they should have had perfect line of sight on the Falcon!

Regardless of whether or not those particular structures are turrets, there still ought to be guns back there that did have a LOS to the Falcon.

This ignores the oddity of having a row of turrets preserved on that part of the ship, but no other turrets like them anywhere else (or not having any of them fall off.), but thats only a secondary point.

The ISD is not a model of symmetry, weapons-wise. What I see is what I get.

I was referring to the direct observation of the model from close up. But I keep forgetting that that takes secondary importance in your mind compared to pictures of said model.

Being in the same post, I'll let you go this time. Keep repeating the same point and I'm going to become cross.

But then I look again, at this picture. And say what you will Conner, the round things do not appear to be connected to the barrels in this picture.

The flaps on the Falcon don't pivot, either. their effect is believed to be electromagnetic )or some such) in nature. The "turrets/struts" could be part that system for the SD, as the Falcon's flaps had strut-like structures, too.

EDIT: Personally, I don't think I can actually SEE any barrels at all.