StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Connor MacLeod wrote:Not entirely. Anakin had his own custom variant..

Which must be a custom-make starfighter only related to the Delta-7 design; the hullform is different.

The basic structural form must be different due to engine placement.

Connor MacLeod wrote:so we know structurally modified Aethersprites existed (I don't ever actually recall seeing anything that indicates just how plentiful the hyperdrive-equipped ones were. To my knowledge the only person who actually had one was Adi Gallia)

Jedi Starfighter? Did it look different?

http://www.holonetnews.com/47/jediwatch/13314_1.html

Connor MacLeod wrote:In any case, how do you explain the simple fact that the schematics in the AOTC ICS in no way allow for the addition of a hyperdrive without modifying the hull in some fashion (like Anakin's fighter.)

What about doing without a spare parts canister; or a smaller one? Look at the probot's hyperdrive. They get pretty small.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Laser cannons aren't quite as massive as a shield generator (or a hyperdrive) for that matter, are they?

It shows the excess generator capacity exists; could not a smaller generator accomodate a shield possibly in the selfsame hull?

Connor MacLeod wrote:What about Obi-Wan's comments in ANH? He made it clear that the TIE they pursued to the Death Star was a "short range" fighter without hyperdrive capability. This sort of rules out the possibility that you could mount a hyperdrive in a TIE without having to make structural modifications.

Or that a military general can eyeball a fighter and figure whether it is a model known to have hyperdrives? We know from the Probot probe that smaller craft with hyperdrives canonically exist. I agree that probably major structural changes would probably be needed with a TIE. My point was simply that the fact they don't look different does not necessarily assign them identical design and equipment characteristics; especially when other evidence says otherwise.

Connor MacLeod wrote:(in any case, shielding and hyperdrives are two different systems - what exactly makes you think the ability to add one means that adding the other would not require any sort of modification?) I might remidn you we have no evidence in the EU that the "modified" vehicles are visually identical to the non-modified ones.

I agree it was an overgeneralisation. However, on the second part, we do have one de facto example: the EU's shieldless TIEs and the TIEs pursuing the Falcon in ANH.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Some are unshielded, some aren't (same with other TIEs.) What exactly is wrong with this?[

Absolutely nothing. This is precisely what I think. I was taking exception with PainRack declaring that the other ANH TIEs must have had shielded because the sentries did. Why? Because they look the same?

Well unless you wish to claim that the chase scene overrides every EU example of any TIE without shields, we know for a fact that some craft visually undestinguishable have shields while other ones do not.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Yes, and there was no visible damage to the panels (or anywhere else for that matter) from the collision. You think we wouldn't see something (especially with other examples to draw on.)[/img]

Of course the TIE Advanced X1 did not have damaged panels in the collision; we know it is shielded. What does the lack of panel-damage on the X1 prove about Black 2's shields? Regardless of Black 2 having shields or not, the collision would not have directly impacted the hull on the X1's part.

Um...not sure about this, but does anyone have photographic proof that those TIEs in the Falcon chase scene had shields? I haven't seen any yet. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Of course the TIE Advanced X1 did not have damaged panels in the collision; we know it is shielded. What does the lack of panel-damage on the X1 prove about Black 2's shields? Regardless of Black 2 having shields or not, the collision would not have directly impacted the hull on the X1's part.

See my previous post. Vader's TIE did in fact have panel damage.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Which must be a custom-make starfighter only related to the Delta-7 design; the hullform is different.

linky

starwars.com wrote: Anakin's starfighter began as a standard Delta-7 Aethersprite that he extensively customized to suit his demanding tastes for speed and control.

It WAS a standard Delta-7 hull that Anakin modified, not a different craft at all.

The basic structural form must be different due to engine placement.

More than that. It incorporates a centerline proton torpedo launcher, hyperdrive, improved manuverability, and four laser cannons on each wingtip. Nevertheless, it was still a standard Aethersprite hull.

Jedi Starfighter? Did it look different?

http://www.holonetnews.com/47/jediwatch/13314_1.html

Very nice. Now show me where it indicates that the vessel shown is the HYPERDRIVE equipped variant. For that matter you apparently didn't read the accompanying text very thoroughly:

holonetnews wrote: At eight meters in length, with a cross-span of under four meters, the Delta-7 would ordinarily be too small to support hyperspace travel. The Jedi starfighter now features a built-in astromech to provide damage control, power regulation, and nav-computer capability. The standard upgrade includes docking clamps and data-feeds to a separate hyperdrive booster ring, subcontracted to TransGalMeg Industries, Inc. of the Rayter sector.

A Delta-7 advanced model, whose specifications remain classified, has been confirmed to carry an onboard hyperdrive and does not require the booster ring. It is unknown what percentage of the Jedi starfighter fleet will consist of Delta-7 advanced.

That alone proves that the standard hull cannot accomodate a hyperdrive. Furthermore, if you bothered to check SW.com:

sw.com canon section

Starwars.com wrote: The vessel was too small to carry a hyperdrive, and instead relied on a separate booster craft for transit through hyperspace.

SW.com EU section

SW.com EU section wrote: Though the standard Delta-7 is too small to carry an onboard hyperdrive, and must instead rely on a TransGalMeg Industries booster ring, there does exist a small number of advanced models with onboard experimental lightspeed engine.

Conclusion? The standard hull is NOT capable of supportting an internal hyperdrive, and requires modificiation to allow it to do so. This is stated fact. Furthermore, there exists a modified version of the Delta-7 that DOES have hyperdrive capability, and DOES have a modified hull. Get the picture?

What about doing without a spare parts canister; or a smaller one? Look at the probot's hyperdrive. They get pretty small.

A probot hyperdrive is more or less a specialized, one-way disposable hyperdrive. and is propelling a far smaller mass than a full-scale fighter (carrying a pilot, weapons, sublight engines, etc.) (Ref: Galaxy Guide 3, Illustrated guide to the SW universe). Its no better than the hyperdrives used for message pods (like the ones used to send a message from Tatooine to KDY in the Bounty Hunter Trilogy.)

Besides which, what makes you think that the cargo space would be roomy enough for a hyperdrive, anyhow?

Connor MacLeod wrote: It shows the excess generator capacity exists; could not a smaller generator accomodate a shield possibly in the selfsame hull?

Not neccesarily. In any case, wouldn't you have to rearrange the internals of the ship to accomodate shield generators and projectors? (and why would you think shields are neccesarily as power-hungry as weapons, anyhow?)

The only thing that would remotely suggest that TIEs can incorporate shields without extensive modifications would be the direct canon evidence that shields exist.

Or that a military general can eyeball a fighter and figure whether it is a model known to have hyperdrives?

A TIE which is visually indistinguishable from any others we saw in the movie.

We know from the Probot probe that smaller craft with hyperdrives canonically exist.

Probot hyperdrives are one way. And its actually the pod that transfers the droid - the droid itself has no innate hyperdrive capability (more akin to the hyperspace ring used by the Delta-7)

What good is a fighter with a one-use internal hyperdrive? Might as well go with the hyperdrive ring if that's the case.

I agree that probably major structural changes would probably be needed with a TIE. My point was simply that the fact they don't look different does not necessarily assign them identical design and equipment characteristics; especially when other evidence says otherwise.

It depends on the characteristics you are referring to. Some modifications may not (like shields), but some certainly (and probably) do (like hyperdrive.)

I agree it was an overgeneralisation. However, on the second part, we do have one de facto example: the EU's shieldless TIEs and the TIEs pursuing the Falcon in ANH.

Yes.

Absolutely nothing. This is precisely what I think. I was taking exception with PainRack declaring that the other ANH TIEs must have had shielded because the sentries did. Why? Because they look the same?

Painrack is basing it on more than just the appearance (which is why he is discussing the point of Vader's TIE colliding with his wingmate.)

Well unless you wish to claim that the chase scene overrides every EU example of any TIE without shields, we know for a fact that some craft visually undestinguishable have shields while other ones do not.

The OT ICS states TIEs do not carry shields as well, so its not just the EU.

Of course the TIE Advanced X1 did not have damaged panels in the collision; we know it is shielded. What does the lack of panel-damage on the X1 prove about Black 2's shields?

I was referring to the standard TIE, not Vader's (even though both do have some panel damage..) I did notice an interesting point in frame-by-frame analysis - the damaged portion of the standard TIE fin glows for a short time and then fades prior to impacting with the side of the trench (for that matter, those "Sparks" bear a strong resemblence ot a shield interaction, as does the "glow": the standard TIE endures.)

Regardless of Black 2 having shields or not, the collision would not have directly impacted the hull on the X1's part.

Not neccesarily. Momentum would be transferred through shield interactions, and could still inflict damage even if shields are raised (especially to something like the TIE's wing panels)

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Furthermore, the TIEs don't have to be different. From the countless EU sources, we know that some TIEs must be shieldless (unless you claim the Falcon chase seen invalidates every TIE, everywhere, that the EU said was unshielded), and surprise! they're structurally identical to the Falcon chase TIEs.

Actually, I interpretete the Falcon scene as indicating all TIEs have navigational shields of some sort. Just none with any combat capability whatsoever unless stated by the EU.

This, as opposed to the EU stand, which state that all TIEs have no shields whatsoever save for certain TIEs like the Avenger etc etc etc.

[Q]Again, the TIE Interceptor powers apparently up-to-10 guns from its reactor, in the standard TIE ball hull. Again, the selfsame Interceptors were easily equipped with shield generators by Thrawn.[/Q]
The ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on an A4 does not translate to the ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on a Pipe Warrior.

Why? How many different models of F-15 are there? Can you distinguish between a F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle during flybys, casually?

Not me. But there are those who can. There are still minor physical differences with the F-15C and F-15E fighters, and remember, this isn't a casual inspection. There have been anaylsts crawling over every TIE craft in the canon for years.

Why don't you put up the evidence? And need I remind you of the TIE which is clipped and careens out of control, sparking and arcing with electrical discharges? That one got nicked hard.

TESB, impact with asteroid. TIE wing panel got sheared off. Is Vader TIE any softer than an asteroid?

Any examples or evidence that shield-to-shield interactions cause this? Oh wait, I see. Sparks are caused by shield-to-shield interactions because Black 2 had shields and sparked on impact with Vader's shielded TIE. Therefore, since Black 2 sparked on impact with Vader's shielded TIE, it had shields.

I don't know why I didn't think of that earlier.

The evidence is not this. The evidence is the fact that Black 2 wings weren't sheared off. So, its "possible" that the sparks were shield interactions, as opposed to that caused by friction.

PainRack wrote:[Q]Again, the TIE Interceptor powers apparently up-to-10 guns from its reactor, in the standard TIE ball hull. Again, the selfsame Interceptors were easily equipped with shield generators by Thrawn.[/Q]
The ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on an A4 does not translate to the ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on a Pipe Warrior.

But a TIE Interceptor and a TIE/ln have the same hull, which means that it's possible to fit the equipment for up to ten guns plus a shield system in a TIE/ln hull, if you want to pay for it.

Robert Treder wrote:

PainRack wrote:[Q]Again, the TIE Interceptor powers apparently up-to-10 guns from its reactor, in the standard TIE ball hull. Again, the selfsame Interceptors were easily equipped with shield generators by Thrawn.[/Q]
The ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on an A4 does not translate to the ability to fit a fuel refuelling boom on a Pipe Warrior.

But a TIE Interceptor and a TIE/ln have the same hull, which means that it's possible to fit the equipment for up to ten guns plus a shield system in a TIE/ln hull, if you want to pay for it.

four to eight of those guns are mounted in/on the wings (IE external) so that's not really surprising. Shields are a different matter (but if ANH is right and TIEs do have conventional shielding, then that part at least is irrelevant to both TIE interceptors and the TIE/ln)

The only real difference between the TIE interceptor and TIE/ln is that the Interceptor has greater speed/manuverability and a bigger powerplant (the TIE ADvanced X1's powerplant was incorporated into the TIE intercecptor, minus the shields/hyperdrive IIRC the OT ICS correctly - the reduction in mass from the removal of those systems contributed to the improvements in the Interceptor.)

What this means is, I suppose, that adding shields to the TIEs makes them more durable, but reduces their mobility due to the added mass (probably not as bad as the TIE Advanced, since it also had a heavier hull and the hyperdrive, but still). Power drain might be an issue, but I dont think it would significantly impact the TIE/ln.

An additional limitation, though one not readily apparent - the shields will have to reradiate the absorbed energy from incoming fire, which will show up as emitted radiation (thus, more than likely, making the ship more readily visible to other vessels) - so this will probably degrade the TIEs EW-ability some as well.

What's the diff between a TIE Interceptor and a TIE/In? And I ask again: where is the photographic proof that the TIE in the Falcon chase scene had shields?

Phantasee wrote:What's the diff between a TIE Interceptor and a TIE/In?

TIE Interceptor:


TIE/ln (that's lowecase L N)

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why? How many different models of F-15 are there? Can you distinguish between a F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle during flybys, casually?

Not to be a nitpicking peanut-eater, but I can't think of two subtypes of the same military aircraft that can't be readily differentiated.

Although it depends on how stringent you're being on distance, speed, and time of observation.











And something else. On SWTC, the existance of an extended-body TIE is noted. This TIE has a beaver tail rather like Vader's X1, and Saxton hypothesized that it might contain a hyperdrive or shielding system.

But I noticed something looking over the pictures tonight. It appears that this beaver tail is a modular subassembly, not a feature of a completely different cockpit ball.

Consider the destruction of the lower TIE in this picture.

The beaver tail appears to be just narrow enough to allow the standard pair of ion engines to be used (as opposed to the X1's quadrupal arrangement). It appears that the short truncated cone on the back of the standard TIE may be removable, and can be substituted for this beaver tail. I can't think offhand of a reason for this tail besides room for extra equipment. We already know what TIEs with extra sensors look like, so I would agree with Saxton that the tail probably holds shields, hyperdrive, or both.


If there is a beaver tail that can be added to give shields or hyperdrive, then I very much doubt it can be fit in a standard hull. I can't think of a reason for the extra space besides shields or hyperdrive, and the modular nature would fit with the EU statements that at least most TIEs are unshielded.

Phantasee wrote:What's the diff between a TIE Interceptor and a TIE/In? And I ask again: where is the photographic proof that the TIE in the Falcon chase scene had shields?

Can't show it to you, but if you have the ANH orginal video, look over the Falcon chase scene. When luke fires upon those TIEs, just before they blow up, white flashes, similar to that seen when Tantive IV attacked the ISD is seen

Also TIE Interceptors have four laser cannons while TIE fighters have two. This gives the Interceptor greater firepower than the fighter.

And I have seen refernces on this site that the TIE interceptors used in the ROTJ battle had 10 laser cannons !

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why? How many different models of F-15 are there? Can you distinguish between a F-15C and F-15E Strike Eagle during flybys, casually?

You're correct, but the example is just bad- F-15Es and F-15Cs have a different paint scheme, not to mention the obvious CFTs on F-15Es. And the C is a one-seat model and the E is a twin-seat model.

A better example would be tell the difference between an F-15A and an F-15C- now that's hard, or an Su-30MKI and Su-35UB.



That looks like an ANH TIE Fighter. The TIE/ln appeared in ESB, being of different color, IIRC ... could be wrong though.

evilcat4000 wrote:Also TIE Interceptors have four laser cannons while TIE fighters have two. This gives the Interceptor greater firepower than the fighter.

And I have seen refernces on this site that the TIE interceptors used in the ROTJ battle had 10 laser cannons !

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

A falcon shot hitting a TIE fighter shield:

The "Heir to the Empire"-Comic (first page) showed TIEs, that looked like ordinary TIE/ln, leaving hyperspace.

Perhaps the empire was able to miniaturize the hyperdrive for TIEs as seen in Classic-SW (if it was a hyperdrive) or they sacrificed another system (weapons? shields?).

Color me happy! Darth Wong's post is a good enough answer for me. I had faith that the Empire wouldn't scimp on it's equipment.

That's pretty damned clear-cut evidence of shielding on at least some TIEs.

Vympel wrote:More accurately, the TIE Interceptors in ROTJ displayed no evidence of having shields; i.e. do we have any reason to believe the TIEs being blasted apart in the Battle of Yavin by X-Wings had shields? Not really.

I'm curious... I can't recall direct hits on X-wings resulting is shield flashes, only grazes like the one that got R2. So perhaps the intensity of a direct hit is enough to pierce the shields without being diffued. Anyone have screen caps from TPM or the OT for this or against it? Then compare it with if we ever saw grazes or what should have been hits agaisnt ties. It might explain the lack of visability.

Why bother? You still wouldn't be able to substanciate whether or not TIE/Is had shields without an observation.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why bother? You still wouldn't be able to substanciate whether or not TIE/Is had shields without an observation.

Because
1) It means that while it does not prove it in hte slightest, it also means it cannot be ruled out anymore because the evidence could go either way
2) It provides information about how shields function and their limits.

The latter being more important.

Ender wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why bother? You still wouldn't be able to substanciate whether or not TIE/Is had shields without an observation.

Because
1) It means that while it does not prove it in hte slightest, it also means it cannot be ruled out anymore because the evidence could go either way

Actually it can be ruled out; Official says they don't have shields. If you have no data either way, than Official holds as canonical.

Ender wrote:2) It provides information about how shields function and their limits.

The latter being more important.

I agree.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:

evilcat4000 wrote:Also TIE Interceptors have four laser cannons while TIE fighters have two. This gives the Interceptor greater firepower than the fighter.

And I have seen refernces on this site that the TIE interceptors used in the ROTJ battle had 10 laser cannons !

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

What was sp obvious about my post ?

If you bothered, you would noticed that you are far from the first person to even mention such. Indeed, it was mentioned first back on the first page.

Additionally, it would take an infant to fail to notice such a painfully obvious notion that more guns equal more firepower.

You do stuff like this a lot, I've noticed.

Darth Wong wrote:A falcon shot hitting a TIE fighter shield:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/TIE-Shields.jpg

I almost hesitate to ask...but I will anyway.

How does this picture illustrate that the explosion is due to shielding, and not just the flak effect oft depicted in SW? Does the proximity flak effect only occur in the presence of shielding, or can it occur in other instances as well? It's a distinctive property with blasters that I was never sure about.