StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Thank you for actually providing some good proof Al. Something that I don't see much of in these type of arguments anymore.

Sardaukar wrote:Thank you for actually providing some good proof Al. Something that I don't see much of in these type of arguments anymore.

you are welcome, I try to keep my mouth shut unless I have proof.

Sardaukar wrote:Thank you for actually providing some good proof Al. Something that I don't see much of in these type of arguments anymore.

Your standard of proof is too high. As I stated before, by your standard of proof, we don't know if something is a weapon (even a bloody obvious heavy turret like that on the Devastator model) unless we see it fire, or it's labelled by official material- no matter how inaccurate that official material is. I've seen their ISD schematic, and it's shit. They didn't even bother looking at the model; just like the 8km long Executor mistake. Think for yourself.

Vympel wrote:

Sardaukar wrote:Thank you for actually providing some good proof Al. Something that I don't see much of in these type of arguments anymore.

Your standard of proof is too high. As I stated before, by your standard of proof, we don't know if something is a weapon (even a bloody obvious heavy turret like that on the Devastator model) unless we see it fire, or it's labelled by official material- no matter how inaccurate that official material is. I've seen their ISD schematic, and it's shit. They didn't even bother looking at the model; just like the 8km long Executor mistake. Think for yourself.

By my standard of proof the ISD turrets ARE turrets because they have clearly been defined by official literature. So I agree that they are turrets. So your analogy is irrelevant.
The TIE's 10 cannons have not been labelled by any official literature, and as far as I knew, they didn't fire in the movie, which is understandable, seeing as that screen cap is from a VERY quick scene.

Also, we still don't know if the holes inbetween the upper and lower wing sections are weapons or not... and I still believe that the original intention was that it only had four guns on the wing tips.

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels lists the Tie interceprter as having 4 Blaster cannons in the wings. it lables the things inbetween the wings as Targeting Sensors. It does say that the pod hardpoints in the command pod are still present and if you could find the space for the power generators one could add 2 more cannons. It does say that if you did add the cannons that it would slow down the ship.

By my standard of proof the ISD turrets ARE turrets because they have clearly been defined by official literature. So I agree that they are turrets. So your analogy is irrelevant.

Clearly you're too lazy to read anything properly, it's very relevant, my point is that you don't need the official literature, which is often pure shit, to call a spade a spade. Your standard of proof is ridiculous. "I refuse to believe anything, even the bloody obvious, unless the official literature tells me so". Smart

The point stands. The official literature is often wrong- not even performing the vaguest research (e.g. 8km Executor). You start with canon, then go to official, not the other way round. How many times do I have to say it?!

Also, we still don't know if the holes inbetween the upper and lower wing sections are weapons or not... and I still believe that the original intention was that it only had four guns on the wing tips.

Original intention is irrelevant. I'm sick and tired of this. I offer a rebuttal, you just repeat what you 'believe'. So what if the concept art shows the four tip guns firing? As I SAID BEFORE (which you ignored, not surprisingly), the concept art of the Star Destroyer from ANH is different from the finished product: smaller with less weapons. The only thing that matters is what we see on screen.

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels lists the Tie interceprter as having 4 Blaster cannons in the wings. it lables the things inbetween the wings as Targeting Sensors. It does say that the pod hardpoints in the command pod are still present and if you could find the space for the power generators one could add 2 more cannons. It does say that if you did add the cannons that it would slow down the ship

Thank you for the evidence. So you agree a TIE Interceptor has at least six guns (as it obviously has from ROTJ)? Those TIE Interceptors didn't seem significantly hindered in ROTJ; but whatever they say.

As for the 'targeting sensors':



The image doesn't call the holes targeting sensors. It calls the structure they are mounted on targeting sensors. Their visible details are identical to the wing cannons- this is obvious; my conclusion is that the targeting sensors are mounted near the cannons.

No such holes exist for the TIE Fighter- how does it target something? Answer: the center struts are the sensors, and have nothing to do with the structures that happen to look exactly like the wing cannons.

No such holes exist for the TIE Bomber- how does it target something? Answer: same as above

No such holes exist for Darth Vader's X1- how does it target something?

Repeat for every Seinar Fleet Systems TIE.

No actually scratch that on the sensors- all sensors mounted on TIEs (and Rebel fighters for that matter) are conformal- I just checked Darth Vader's TIE in the SW:ICS (the most well researched source) they are placed on the cockpit ball- and I see no reason why this should not be so with other SFS fighters- as is quite obvious by the standardization between models.

Additionally, the X-Wing and Y-Wing both have no hole like structures, with their sensors positioned in the nose of the X-Wing and on the engine pods on the Y-Wing. Both are radome type.

No holes anywhere. Especially no holes that happen to be exactly like laser cannons

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant Star Destroyer related analogies?
There is no reason NOT to believe the turrets are turrets. They have pretty much been identified as turrets all along.
Also the official word on the Executor's length is currently 12.8km not 8km, however it is CLEAR in the movies that that isn't the case, unlike the TIE issue, which IS NOT as clear, due to the fact that to actually see anything you have to scan the movie frame-by-frame.

And up until earlier today I had NO reason to believe that anything on the TIE interceptor that wasn't labelled as a gun was in fact, a gun. What is so fucking unreasonable about that.

The only "proof" you ever supplied was "they look the same, so they must be the same, despite what any official materials says". Which is not enough proof for me.
Do you understand how fucking weak that is?

It's clear now that the TIE Interceptors in the Battle Of Endor had some sort of weapon on the chin mounts. However, you are being an ass and continuing to argue, despite the fact that you were unable to bring ANY conclusive proof to the debate, other than a picture showing similar holes.

There is no reason NOT to believe the turrets are turrets. They have pretty much been identified as turrets all along

And there is no reason not to believe the holes are in fact, lasers, considering they are all exactly the same. Jeez

And up until earlier today I had NO reason to believe that anything on the TIE interceptor that wasn't labelled as a gun was in fact, a gun. What is so fucking unreasonable about that

The fact that you need what is obvious pointed out to you at all, just as you continually say that a heavy turret can only be called a heavy turret because some guy who is capable of using his eyes and common sense ALL BY HIMSELF tells you it is.

The only "proof" you ever supplied was "they look the same, so they must be the same, despite what any official materials says". Which is not enough proof for me.
Do you understand how fucking weak that is?

I have shown that the official material doesn't call the holes targeting sensors, it calls the structure the holes are on targeting sensors. I have also shown that no 'hole-like' targeting sensors exist on any other Star Wars fighter, manufactured by Seinar Fleet Systems, or anyone else for that matter.

It's clear now that the TIE Interceptors in the Battle Of Endor had some sort of weapon on the chin mounts. However, you are being an ass and continuing to argue, despite the fact that you were unable to bring ANY conclusive proof to the debate, other than a picture showing similar holes

Well DER. Those chin mounts are the same as those as TIE Fighters; it's only natural to assume that they are laser mounts- not this stupid EU-fetish "oh they might be something else" bullshit. If that screenshot didn't exist, I'd still say they were lasers, because that's what they obviously are- just like the engines on a Mon Cal are obviously engines, or how the HTLs are obviously HTLs. I don't need official literature to hold my hand; I prefer interpretation based on canon above official- and will only take official onboard where canon is of no help. I have proposed that a 10-cannon variant exists, and that the EU refers to a 4-cannon variant. What is wrong with that? In fact, I'm being too polite; as I have repeatedly pointed out, the entire 4 cannon things originates from a shitty model made back in 1983!!!! For gods sake!

Wouldn't the four-cannon idea actually originate from the concpept art, and not the "shitty model".

Btw

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant Star Destroyer related analogies?

Because you still don't fucking get the point of the analogy. The point is to show up your ridiculous policy of not labelling anything unless your told by official source. The point is not that its been labelled something all along. The point is it doesn't HAVE TO BE.

Also the official word on the Executor's length is currently 12.8km not 8km, however it is CLEAR in the movies that that isn't the case, unlike the TIE issue, which IS NOT as clear, due to the fact that to actually see anything you have to scan the movie frame-by-frame

What are you on about? Noone needs to scan anything- I've provided a detailed pic of the actual model used during filming, WITH CLOSEUPS. This is the best source that exists.

And because you like it so much: how do you think everyone figured out what HTLs were? Because some official literature guy arbitrarily labelled eight vague structures as such? (WEG didn't even bother doing that but anyway) No. It's because of THIS:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd09.jpg

Look out Star Wars fans, we don't know if those are turrets until the good people over at the official literature houses tell us they are!!

and THIS:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

Note some of the barrels have been knocked off. It's 20 years old.

Sardaukar wrote:Wouldn't the four-cannon idea actually originate from the concpept art, and not the "shitty model".

Saxton: "The common notion that TIE interceptors have only four cannons is due to the omission of small parts for the guns on the cockpit chin and poor detail on the wing hubs on the model kit made in 1983"

I lean towards the model being responsible; the sotryboard art is so vague that for it to be used as a source is just irresponsible.

From whichever it originates; it's still wrong: the model from the movie has six exactly identical holes and two extras that are from a TIE Fighter, the commercial model omits SIX of them except for the four wingtip cannons; and the storyboard art is so vague that noone should use it as a source.

Vympel wrote:Btw

Why do you keep bringing up irrelevant Star Destroyer related analogies?

Because you still don't fucking get the point of the analogy. The point is to show up your ridiculous policy of not labelling anything unless your told by official source. The point is not that its been labelled something all along. The point is it doesn't HAVE TO BE.

Also the official word on the Executor's length is currently 12.8km not 8km, however it is CLEAR in the movies that that isn't the case, unlike the TIE issue, which IS NOT as clear, due to the fact that to actually see anything you have to scan the movie frame-by-frame

What are you on about? Noone needs to scan anything- I've provided a detailed pic of the actual model used during filming, WITH CLOSEUPS. This is the best source that exists.

And because you like it so much: how do you think everyone figured out what HTLs were? Because some official literature guy arbitrarily labelled eight vague structures as such? (WEG didn't even bother doing that but anyway) No. It's because of THIS:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd09.jpg

Look out Star Wars fans, we don't know if those are turrets until the good people over at the official literature houses tell us they are!!

and THIS:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradford/ISD_Guns.jpg

Note some of the barrels have been knocked off. It's 20 years old.

Seriously dude, get over the turbolasers, it's obvious. I'm on your side with that one.

Vympel wrote:

Sardaukar wrote:Wouldn't the four-cannon idea actually originate from the concpept art, and not the "shitty model".

Saxton: "The common notion that TIE interceptors have only four cannons is due to the omission of small parts for the guns on the cockpit chin and poor detail on the wing hubs on the model kit made in 1983"

I lean towards the model being responsible; the sotryboard art is so vague that for it to be used as a source is just irresponsible.

From whichever it originates; it's still wrong: the model from the movie has six exactly identical holes and two extras that are from a TIE Fighter, the commercial model omits SIX of them except for the four wingtip cannons; and the storyboard art is so vague that noone should use it as a source.

It's not really vague, It would be vague if it DIDN'T show the tips (or anything else) firing, but it does.
I was trying earlier to look for any more storyboard or concept art for the TIE Interceptor, but I didn't find anything.

Sorry for getting pissed mate- I haven't actually had a SW debate till now.

Regarding the concept art, its besides the point- because we have the best source at our disposal, the actual model.

Canon: 6 cannon are seen to fire (per the link by LA, assuming bilateral symmetry ).
Logic: 10 structures of which 4 are labeled by the white picture (WEG?EGVV?) as laser, these 4 +2 more are seen in canon shots => picture labeling is overruled by canon, as of the 6 'unlabeled round holes' at least two are cannon that are not labeled, the other 4 are identical to the 2 in:
A) beeing visibly identical to the 'round holes' labeled as cannon
B) not beeing labeled.
So they are likely all cannon, no reason to belive otherwise. (unless someone comes up with a theory that has more meat on it then 'they are something else' / 'targeting sensors, the labeling is just slightly off-center', as it isn't off-center for the lasers)
EGVV: 4 + optional 2 Blaster cannons (Isolder74's quote) does fit canon, so cannot be discarded.

So if you go by canon and canon only you get a 6 cannon TIE Interceptor.
same goes for the 'canon + EGVV, but No logic' approach.
If you favor canon, then logic, and only then EU, you get a 10 cannon.
If you favor canon, EU, then logic, you get 4 + 2 more + 4 more = 10 cannon (some may be optional).

I lean strongly to the canon, logic, EU ordering; but most posters here (and GL apparently) adhere to canon, EU, logic, so I will go by that.
So you get 10 cannon TIE Interceptors + the need for other (pre-Endor) 4 and possibly 6 gun models to explain the EU.


btw. Would you agree that ALs the screenshot shows the TIE angling its fire towards the Falcon, not shooting along its heading (the wingtip shot gives me this impression), and that the TIE/Int therefor can angle its fire?
(if it was moving at high speeds compared to the laser cannon fire, and turned it's nose 'off-vector' to its flight direction the same effect would be seen without the need for angled shots. This would however disprove all the computer games that claim 'air?ether?-resistance' in space, a theory scientists disproved more then a century ago for our univers )
(this latter should probably have been a seperate thread, but whatever)

You just summarized my position exactly; i.e.

canon
logic
EU

How does George Lucas go by EU then logic however?

Regarding AL's screenshot, I don't know if the laser fire can be said to be angling ... but the burden of proof is on those who assert that its lasers are different to the lasers of a standard TIE Fighter.

The GL comment relates to the official stance that canon overrules official (including EU) overrules all else (logic is not mentioned so must be in this category )
Of course that is not likely what they ment it to say; or maybe it is, since logic seems to be very debatable both on this site and elsewhere in general; it's that 'certain point of view' thing y'know, and everybody (including me) just has to have one.

Heh I was thinking logic in terms of ...

'Star Wars logic'

if there is such a thing hehehe

As in we go to the logical conclusion based on the canon evidence, rather than run straight to the EU. Doing this can rectify atrocities such as the 8km Executor, and the four laser TIE Interceptor