StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Connor MacLeod wrote:It seems unliekly they "Traded off" anything to add the launchers.

They dropped the tractor beams for them.

And the Chimera got some severe upgrading and had been in the hands of the rebels.

My first two points are irrelevent now, but I have an interesting screenshot from the movie that I'll use instead, but first....

Again, I refer you to the fact bowcaster bolts ARE physical projectiles even though they are identically blaster bolts. Your argument collapses entirely on THAT point alone, ignoring the fact you have provided no actual proof to counter any of my claims.

Just a thought, but nowhere in the movie does it state that it uses projectiles, and in fact I believe (but don't quote me on this) it is reffered to as a "laser crossbow" and that the projectile idea was coined by some EU writer. To that end canon>official. And then in fact it is identical to a blaster bolt because it is one. I could base an argument off of that, but I'll just leave it for you to comtemplate.

Then there's some more stuff about definitons that is as of now irrelevent.

Red herring. If you knew your sources as well as you apparently try to pretend you do, you'd know that according to the AOTC ICS, shields are energy absorption and retransmission devices.. the bolts must naturally "decay" into photons before they can be absorbed - duh.

Lasers cannot be massless photons. Witness the superlaser and the combonation of multiple beams. Massless photons would pass through each other. And I've nothing of thsi "retransmission," it si possible it is mentioned, and I just cannot remember/missed it. Please specify.

Face it. You've lost. Stop trying semantics dodges and concede.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Now for my most important piece of evidence yet, an actual screenshot from TESB.

Assuming the photo came up (I haven't ever tried posting one before) you can see it is of rather poor quality. It was taken by mean, via digital camera in front of a TV screen. You'll notice the flash on one of the Star Destroyers in the distance, ignore it.

Now whats important, from what we can see there is two beams, one is exploding, the other isn't. These beams were fired from a TIE Fighter. I kid you not, if you don't believe me you are free to check the movie yourself, it is the scene right after the two SDs collide in TESB. TIE Fighter do not carry missles, and even if you'd like to argue that they do, these beams came from the two holes right on in front of it, missles cannot be lauched from there. Only lasers. Furthermore, this cannot be a shield/laser interaction, because the Falcon (top right, blurred do to motion) is dozens of meters away from it. This is the first frame where the beam begins to explode, so that is the exact distance the Falcon was when the TIE flak bursted lasers at it, and obviosuly missed by some distance.

I believe that is satisfactory proof of a lasers flak bursting ability, for what you see is what you get. [/img]

Well, it could be that the blast hit a rock, but I doubt that.

Unless one of those cloaked rocks that Thrawn unleashed on Coruscant time-traveled back to TESB than no, it isn't a rock. No rock is visible, nor should there be one, they weren't at the asteroid field yet.

Just bringing it up to the top 'cause I can, and because I want Connor to see it.

*looks at image*

Thats some weak weapons, visual confirmation that overrules the ICS, thank you Darth Garden Gnome.

Oh and did you note the distance of the Falcon to the bolts, the exploding bolt is closer than the one that did not explode, there's no proof this is not a bolt shield interaction, if you'd read the ICS you'd see that shields extend some distance away but get weaker with it.

Also, did you hear about the angling of deflector shields?

At first we can see shots from behind the falcon passing very near it and going unimpedly forward, yet after Han tells Chewie to angle the rear deflectors then the shots begin to explode just behind the Falcon.

Did any of you read the article by Brian Young?

At any rate, if you don't like this and still try to argue for flak-bursts, then I merely guess that a future tech book will take care of such things, because Saxton's not liking this.

And personally I find no reason for arguing flak-burst capabilities, only reasons against, mainly of it being trek like violations of physics, more uselessly complex theories and it would cast SERIOUS doubts on the tactical capabilities of SW, or rather what kind of morons they are for not using it when it could have been so usefull, there's only bad stuff coming from this.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:Unless one of those cloaked rocks that Thrawn unleashed on Coruscant time-traveled back to TESB than no, it isn't a rock. No rock is visible, nor should there be one, they weren't at the asteroid field yet.

Space is filled with many small particles and rocks, it's not that we don't see it as much as it's strange that we see the ISD and Falcon and such as clearly, when it should be VERY dark.

Just a thought, but nowhere in the movie does it state that it uses projectiles, and in fact I believe (but don't quote me on this) it is reffered to as a "laser crossbow" and that the projectile idea was coined by some EU writer. To that end canon>official. And then in fact it is identical to a blaster bolt because it is one. I could base an argument off of that, but I'll just leave it for you to comtemplate.

You could not base an argument of that, only gain grounds for a good flaming, it's pretty clear what it is, it's solid fact, trying to dispute the explicit stated nature of that weapon based on the grounds of a name you read somewhere is no better than the people who claim turbolasers are 100% real life lasers based soley on their names, or that navigational deflectors are immune to lasers.
You don't want to go down that path.

Lasers cannot be massless photons

But they have to be, massless at any rate, visuals say so, just as they say they have to have mass.

And we've also seen the same weapons move at C and fire in beam configuration, it stands to reason that the slowing down of the beams into STL bolts is done through artifical means.

Witness the superlaser and the combonation of multiple beams. Massless photons would pass through each other. And I've nothing of thsi "retransmission," it si possible it is mentioned, and I just cannot remember/missed it. Please specify

You act as if the combination is a natural thing for the beams to do, why? Why isn't it forced by other force-fields, and technologies like that?
I see zero reasons to apply such things as natural to the beam/bolt.

A simple theory I once thought about would simply be a laser and a stasis field, laser fires into stasis field, is frozen in time in that grid which is launched and maintained through the use of an invisible beam moving at C, this grid might leak, and as such light from the laser becomes decoherent and starts to leak from the field, creating the visible bolt.
That was one idea anyway, possibly not compatible with the official evidence.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote: Just a thought, but nowhere in the movie does it state that it uses projectiles, and in fact I believe (but don't quote me on this) it is reffered to as a "laser crossbow" and that the projectile idea was coined by some EU writer. To that end canon>official. And then in fact it is identical to a blaster bolt because it is one. I could base an argument off of that, but I'll just leave it for you to comtemplate.

1.) The fact it isnt stated in the movies does not make it inconsistent. Find a direct inconsistency and we'll talk.

2.) IF you're going to use the "laser crossbow" as a refutation, find the goddamn quote rather than assuming your memory is sufficient, otherwise fucking concede. Besides which, how is the name supposed to disprove that its a physical projectile? Because it uses the word "laser?"

(I might add that according to the Ep2 novelization, blasters are referred to as "projectile" weapons.)

3.) This "Refutation" of the bowcaster allegation is nothing more than ill-supported speculation on your part, and does nothing to counter my claim.

Then there's some more stuff about definitons that is as of now irrelevent.

Since when?

Lasers cannot be massless photons. Witness the superlaser and the combonation of multiple beams. Massless photons would pass through each other. And I've nothing of thsi "retransmission," it si possible it is mentioned, and I just cannot remember/missed it. Please specify.

The massless particles DECAY into photons. Learn to read. (BTW "massless photons" is redundant - photons are by definition massless)

As for the shields, I suggest you check out the Naboo Cruiser, Jedi STarfighter, and Padme's starship entries. The illustrations clearly not only show, but identify the fact shield generators have both heat sinks and radiators for handling absorbed energy.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Now for my most important piece of evidence yet, an actual screenshot from TESB.

Assuming the photo came up (I haven't ever tried posting one before) you can see it is of rather poor quality. It was taken by mean, via digital camera in front of a TV screen. You'll notice the flash on one of the Star Destroyers in the distance, ignore it.

Now whats important, from what we can see there is two beams, one is exploding, the other isn't. These beams were fired from a TIE Fighter. I kid you not, if you don't believe me you are free to check the movie yourself, it is the scene right after the two SDs collide in TESB. TIE Fighter do not carry missles, and even if you'd like to argue that they do, these beams came from the two holes right on in front of it, missles cannot be lauched from there. Only lasers.Furthermore, this cannot be a shield/laser interaction, because the Falcon (top right, blurred do to motion) is dozens of meters away from it. This is the first frame where the beam begins to explode, so that is the exact distance the Falcon was when the TIE flak bursted lasers at it, and obviosuly missed by some distance.

How can you claim its "dozens" of meters away? When I watched that scene in slow motion it didnt even APPEAR remotely that far away - do you have some sort of scaling reference? For that matter, whats your proof that shields can't extend out that far? In Courtship of Princess leia, the Falcon's shields extended out 50 meters in front of the ship!

Again, you have not refuted my arguments and your efforts so far have been complete bullshit. You lose.

I believe that is satisfactory proof of a lasers flak bursting ability, for what you see is what you get. [/img]

Its more proof that you're only seeing what you choose to see, and plugging your ears to the rest of it. I'm starting to lose my patience with your foolishness.

Wow quite a big argument going on here...

If I were Solo I wouldn't stretch my shield so far away from my ship because the further you stretch your shield the weaker it became.

As for the flak mode maybe it exists maybe not.

I rather think that those previously mentioned flashes and those that can be seen at the Slave-1-Jedi Starfighter chase are the end of the blasts.

I mean they "consume" themself in a flash like this.

The only thing for me that supports the "flak-idea" is the Bonus DVD of AoTC. There Lucas explains -with some original movie- how original WWII flight movies inspired him. That gives a hint.

I think ILM put these flash in just to amaze us, these're part of the scenes.

I think we won't find a solution in that case...

Connor MacLeod wrote:1.) The fact it isnt stated in the movies does not make it inconsistent. Find a direct inconsistency and we'll talk.

2.) IF you're going to use the "laser crossbow" as a refutation, find the goddamn quote rather than assuming your memory is sufficient, otherwise fucking concede. Besides which, how is the name supposed to disprove that its a physical projectile? Because it uses the word "laser?"

(I might add that according to the Ep2 novelization, blasters are referred to as "projectile" weapons.)

3.) This "Refutation" of the bowcaster allegation is nothing more than ill-supported speculation on your part, and does nothing to counter my claim.

conceded.

The massless particles DECAY into photons. Learn to read. (BTW "massless photons" is redundant - photons are by definition massless)

As for the shields, I suggest you check out the Naboo Cruiser, Jedi STarfighter, and Padme's starship entries. The illustrations clearly not only show, but identify the fact shield generators have both heat sinks and radiators for handling absorbed energy.

I'm not sure where I was trying to go with this.....to that end conceded.

How can you claim its "dozens" of meters away? When I watched that scene in slow motion it didnt even APPEAR remotely that far away - do you have some sort of scaling reference? For that matter, whats your proof that shields can't extend out that far? In Courtship of Princess leia, the Falcon's shields extended out 50 meters in front of the ship!

Again, you have not refuted my arguments and your efforts so far have been complete bullshit. You lose.

Let me start off by saying I always thought "angle the deflectors" meant to put mor epower to another part of the shields, rather than expanding it. Either definition could be correct I suppose.

Now on to more important matters, when I say "dozens of meters" its mearly a rough estimate. I made a stab at the length of the MF, I say its about 20-30 meters in length. It's far enough from the blast to where I can say safely its dozens of meters away. A nitpick on the word 'dozens' it can actually refer to the number 24 itself, but that wasn't my intention anyways.

And exactlywhywould the Falcon extened it's shields even if it could hmmmm? If we believe the ICS, then the farther out shields go the wealer they become. Also it extends the target profile. This would accomplish two things for the MF then, 1.) It would make it easier to hit, and 2.) Those hits would damage the shields more. I see no reason for a shield extension at that point.

And may I ask why the MF extended its shields in CoPL?


Again, you have not refuted my arguments and your efforts so far have been complete bullshit. You lose. [/quote]

Darth Garden Gnome wrote: Let me start off by saying I always thought "angle the deflectors" meant to put mor epower to another part of the shields, rather than expanding it. Either definition could be correct I suppose.

Shields aren't just a fixed emplacement. They're static, layered, and multiple-segment devices with very flexible deployment and handling options. We have ample evidence of shield extensions (From the Endor shield to the DS2 to Daala extending her ISD shields to protect a disabled ISD in Darksaber.)

Now on to more important matters, when I say "dozens of meters" its mearly a rough estimate. I made a stab at the length of the MF, I say its about 20-30 meters in length. It's far enough from the blast to where I can say safely its dozens of meters away. A nitpick on the word 'dozens' it can actually refer to the number 24 itself, but that wasn't my intention anyways.

The Falcon, at least in canonical terms, is about 40-50 meters or so long (according to Robert Brown's scalings, which I believe both brian young and Michael Wong have used.)

And exactlywhywould the Falcon extened it's shields even if it could hmmmm? If we believe the ICS, then the farther out shields go the wealer they become. Also it extends the target profile. This would accomplish two things for the MF then, 1.) It would make it easier to hit, and 2.) Those hits would damage the shields more. I see no reason for a shield extension at that point.

What does it matter why? I don't have to prove that there is a reason for it - simply the fact they can do it. One possibility is that a larger surface area for shields might allow bolt energies to be dispersed over a larger surface area, making them easier to absorb (bolts you may have noticed according to Saxton's analysis, tend to "Fragment" into smaller and smaller bolts. This would increase protection, but it would either require weakening shields in another area, or to increase power to the generators (which may shorten their lifespan, or risk overload.)

But the "why" is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that they can matters, unless you can trump me with higher-source evidence (and evidence that does not require on your interpretations.)

And may I ask why the MF extended its shields in CoPL?

Irrelevant to the argument. They can do it... thats all that matters.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The Falcon, at least in canonical terms, is about 40-50 meters or so long (according to Robert Brown's scalings, which I believe both brian young and Michael Wong have used.)

So then the distance from the bolt must have been dozens of meters.

What does it matter why? I don't have to prove that there is a reason for it - simply the fact they can do it. One possibility is that a larger surface area for shields might allow bolt energies to be dispersed over a larger surface area, making them easier to absorb (bolts you may have noticed according to Saxton's analysis, tend to "Fragment" into smaller and smaller bolts. This would increase protection, but it would either require weakening shields in another area, or to increase power to the generators (which may shorten their lifespan, or risk overload.)

But the "why" is irrelevant to the issue. The fact that they can matters, unless you can trump me with higher-source evidence (and evidence that does not require on your interpretations.)

Why is relevent. Just because the MF can extend its shields doesn't mean it would have in said situation. Han wouldn't so something stupid and pointless like extending the shields if it gave him no advantage. And that would rule out shield extensions (unless there would be a reason Han would do such a thing).

Increasing the surface area to dissipiate a blast, although the shields are weaker vs. decreasing the shield area but having more power to the shields. It doesn't seem to be any advantage to doing either thing, save that an extended shield is easier to hit.

Irrelevant to the argument. They can do it... thats all that matters.

And if you do tell me why the MF exteneded her shields in CoPL I might concede depending on why.

Gee, that's a lot of theorizing about flak bursts.

Official = flak bursts exists.

Canon = flak bursts may or may not exist. They're not disproven.

That's the end of it in my book, but I guess that's just me..

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:So then the distance from the bolt must have been dozens of meters.

You have scaling proof of this? Otherwise it means its only your guess.

Why is relevent. Just because the MF can extend its shields doesn't mean it would have in said situation. Han wouldn't so something stupid and pointless like extending the shields if it gave him no advantage. And that would rule out shield extensions (unless there would be a reason Han would do such a thing).

Wrong. You have yet to prove that the "flak burst" exists in anything beyond your imagination. The only proof you've provided is semantic interpretations (which have no status) of canon events and literature that do not neccesarily support that contention. I however have brought AMPLE evidence forward to support every one of my points. There is proof that shields can be extended. There is proof regarding "projectiles looking like blaster bolts." I've disproved your "definitions" of that dumb-ass flak burst, not to mention the visuals. We have evidence of the effects of shield/bolt interactions (which are on Saxton's site, I might add - Saxton himself agrees with me on this point. Don't believe me, email him.) In return, all you do to counter is nitpick over the semantics. You obviously have no proof, so you have no argument. Concession accepted.

I find it rather amusing that you're calling MY notion of extending the shields stupid, when you're the one arguing we should treat energy weapons as if they were like physical warheads. Are you deliberately trying to make SW more like trek? Maybe you'd like to add self-aware guidance systems to TLs (maybe there are little TL fairies that move the bolt around and tell it when to explode?)

Increasing the surface area to dissipiate a blast, although the shields are weaker vs. decreasing the shield area but having more power to the shields. It doesn't seem to be any advantage to doing either thing, save that an extended shield is easier to hit.

You're an idiot. I SAID that increasing shield power can ALSO allow one to increase shield volume without dissipating the overall absorption capability. Even more, you obviously have no concept of what I am talking about. Increasing the surface area over which shields must absorb energy reduces the intensity of said energy (SW armor does much the same thing, if you bothered to read the AoTC ICS).

But as I said, the REASON is irrelevant. They have the ability to do so, it fits the events at hand, and you have provided no proof beyond your semantic interpretation to back up your statement. Concession accepted.

And if you do tell me why the MF exteneded her shields in CoPL I might concede depending on why.

I don't need to tell you shit. You've done nothing but nitpick every single one of my points, avoid providing any substantial evidence (and the evidence you HAVE provided is rather open-ended). The validity of my theory is not contingent upon providing an adequate reason why they did so.

Again, its obvious you have lost, even if you are too stupid to realize it. Concession accepted.

nightmare wrote:Gee, that's a lot of theorizing about flak bursts.

Official = flak bursts exists.

Really? What source? I've never heard of an EU novel mentioning flak bursts. I'd love to check out the source you're drawing on, though.

I have three theories on how flakbursts may be achieved:
===========
On the flakburst theory, if the quanta of the bolt degenerates into light and/or plasma and it might be so that the degenration is not always at a constant rate, say if the bolt comes too close to the weak outer edges of a shield boundary, maybe there's some destabilzation that increases the rate enough for it to release enough light/plasma to act like a flakburst, though it would only be a small fraction of the bolt(which would fit with visuals since those flak bursts are definitly not KT ranged), one could even use this a deliberate tactic if so, to soften up a target with less risk of destroying, explaining certain passages in the novellizations that speak of flakbursting in a deliberate manner.
===========

Connor MacLeod wrote:You have scaling proof of this? Otherwise it means its only your guess.

You said yourself the Falcon is at a low end 40 meters long. Although the Falcon is not lined up perfectly on the same horizontal nor vertical axis it isn't too far off alignment to where the distance in a two-dimensional environment (where I made my guess at it) would bethatfar off in the third-dimension.

Wrong. You have yet to prove that the "flak burst" exists in anything beyond your imagination. The only proof you've provided is semantic interpretations (which have no status) of canon events and literature that do not neccesarily support that contention. I however have brought AMPLE evidence forward to support every one of my points. There is proof that shields can be extended. There is proof regarding "projectiles looking like blaster bolts." I've disproved your "definitions" of that dumb-ass flak burst, not to mention the visuals. We have evidence of the effects of shield/bolt interactions (which are on Saxton's site, I might add - Saxton himself agrees with me on this point. Don't believe me, email him.) In return, all you do to counter is nitpick over the semantics. You obviously have no proof, so you have no argument. Concession accepted.

Fait enough, although I still argue that why is relevent, but I'll bring some quotes to the table. From the canon novelization of ANH:

"No flak, no enemy fighters up here-yet." -P.166 (this is relevent to the next pair of quotes, since they could be refering to projectiles.)

"Imperial crews lining the trench were rudley awoke to the fact that their heretofore ignored section of the station was coming under attack. they reacted speedily, and soon energy bolts were racing at the attacking ships in a steadily increasig volume. Occasionaly one would explode near one of the onrushing Y-wings, jolsting it without real damage." -P.166 (Here we read about energy bolts exploding, albeit causing no damage but exploding none the less.)

"Luke didn't offer an evaluation-he was too busy holding course through the turbulence produced by exploding bolts." -P.174 (And here we read about exploding bolts. Only energy beams are refered to as bolts during the battle.)

I find it rather amusing that you're calling MY notion of extending the shields stupid, when you're the one arguing we should treat energy weapons as if they were like physical warheads. Are you deliberately trying to make SW more like trek? Maybe you'd like to add self-aware guidance systems to TLs (maybe there are little TL fairies that move the bolt around and tell it when to explode?)

The idea of faster than light travel, accelerating at thousands of Gs in miles long space craft, and planet cracking weaponry are all pretty weird and beyond our grasp. I don't see why the 'flak burst' is so fanciful to you.

You're an idiot. I SAID that increasing shield power can ALSO allow one to increase shield volume without dissipating the overall absorption capability. Even more, you obviously have no concept of what I am talking about. Increasing the surface area over which shields must absorb energy reduces the intensity of said energy (SW armor does much the same thing, if you bothered to read the AoTC ICS).

You can increase shield power anywhere, whether or not shields are exteneded. Thusly, you can keep the shields close, and back them up with even more power to get very powerful shields, with a small target profile. Or you can extend them, back them up with power, to get an only moderatley powerful shields, but with extra dispertion, and larger profile.

I suppose its a trade off, extended shields seem to be more protective, while close ones seem to be more difficult to hit. However in the picture I posted some time ago, they were fighting TIE Fighters, who don't have paticularly powerful lasers. So why would the MF extend her shields when it would be a greater advantage to keep em close, and not risk getting hit the extra times? Although I understand 'why' is irrelevent to you anyways.

And I own the damn ICS, I've read through it plenty of times. But armor is different than an energy field. It can both be hard and super-dispersive (The Acclamators netronium). You already know my ideas on shields extended vs. not extended of course.

But as I said, the REASON is irrelevant. They have the ability to do so, it fits the events at hand, and you have provided no proof beyond your semantic interpretation to back up your statement. Concession accepted.

Why I still believe is relevant. For all I know in CoPL the MF used her shields to push away a deadly particle, or creature or some shit like that. In such an instance it would then become apparent it isnotintended to be used in combat.

His Divine Shadow wrote:I have three theories on how flakbursts may be achieved:
===========
On the flakburst theory, if the quanta of the bolt degenerates into light and/or plasma and it might be so that the degenration is not always at a constant rate, say if the bolt comes too close to the weak outer edges of a shield boundary, maybe there's some destabilzation that increases the rate enough for it to release enough light/plasma to act like a flakburst, though it would only be a small fraction of the bolt(which would fit with visuals since those flak bursts are definitly not KT ranged), one could even use this a deliberate tactic if so, to soften up a target with less risk of destroying, explaining certain passages in the novellizations that speak of flakbursting in a deliberate manner.
===========

Oh yeah, that was only one, but hey, live with it

Having watched the arguments flow around the subject of turbolaser flak burst, I'd like to add my thoughts... (I was really waiting for the other 2 theories, HDS. )

Why search for a convoluted solution to explain flak burst? I mean, why depend on a uncertain mechanism (rate of bolt decay), or an acting field ("magnetic confinement" of the bolt) to explain a "spherical explosion", if simpler explanations could better?
Yes, Star Wars tech is capable of doing magic, but we've seen common sense in technical aplications, and the flak burst phenomena is no diferent.

Recalling history, flak was pertained to the detonation of explosives shells at predefined altitues, in the path of a enemy plane, in order to destroy it. Due to manufacturing tolerances, and technological limits, the fuses would burst at diferent times (read altitudes) creating the flak barrage (I'm not counting with the firing procedure!). With technological development, mainly centimetric radar, it was possible to put a small radar fuse on the nose of the shell, increasing hit rate, but the flak burst still existed, since it would mean more metal in the air, meaning shrapnell damage.
(Referencing Vietnam) Even with radar fire control, they would still resorted to a barrage, through which a plane had to pass.
Where am I going with this?
Well, Star Wars tech has shown a high degree of accuracy, why resort to exploding near misses, when the rate of fire/recharge is capable of delivering a large number of volleys on a fleeting target, even if half-3/4 of those shots miss, maybe the next one won't, and brings the shields down. (analogy to the Phalanx CIWS installed on warships.)

So, I'll make my point: flak burst, as pertaining to a spherical explosion, can either be bolt-shield interactions (ESB asteroid scene), bolt/asteroid detonation (same scene), shield/asteroid interactions (same scene) or missile detonations (ROTJ in between fleets), this way, they don't require magical tech, or convoluted solutions to explain the phenomena.

Well, Star Wars tech has shown a high degree of accuracy, why resort to exploding near misses, when the rate of fire/recharge is capable of delivering a large number of volleys on a fleeting target

To soften it up, as not to risk destroying it, if that is the objective.

So, I'll make my point: flak burst, as pertaining to a spherical explosion, can either be bolt-shield interactions (ESB asteroid scene), bolt/asteroid detonation (same scene), shield/asteroid interactions (same scene) or missile detonations (ROTJ in between fleets), this way, they don't require magical tech, or convoluted solutions to explain the phenomena.

Isn't this what I said more or less, I was just giving a sort of reason.

"No flak, no enemy fighters up here-yet." -P.166 (this is relevent to the next pair of quotes, since they could be refering to projectiles.)

"Imperial crews lining the trench were rudley awoke to the fact that their heretofore ignored section of the station was coming under attack. they reacted speedily, and soon energy bolts were racing at the attacking ships in a steadily increasig volume. Occasionaly one would explode near one of the onrushing Y-wings, jolsting it without real damage." -P.166 (Here we read about energy bolts exploding, albeit causing no damage but exploding none the less.)

"Luke didn't offer an evaluation-he was too busy holding course through the turbulence produced by exploding bolts." -P.174 (And here we read about exploding bolts. Only energy beams are refered to as bolts during the battle.)

These do not to me anyway disprove the bolt-shield interaction idea, the second one seems to confirm my theory.

The idea of faster than light travel, accelerating at thousands of Gs in miles long space craft, and planet cracking weaponry are all pretty weird and beyond our grasp. I don't see why the 'flak burst' is so fanciful to you

No need to go the extra mile perhaps?

I suppose its a trade off, extended shields seem to be more protective, while close ones seem to be more difficult to hit. However in the picture I posted some time ago, they were fighting TIE Fighters, who don't have paticularly powerful lasers. So why would the MF extend her shields when it would be a greater advantage to keep em close, and not risk getting hit the extra times? Although I understand 'why' is irrelevent to you anyways

We dont know wheter the MF can withdraw her shields more than that, and if they do give better protection, then maybe thats why they where like that, also , just becase a bolt would fly through the outer edges of the shield's influence does not have to guarantee a flakburst like effect.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Well, Star Wars tech has shown a high degree of accuracy, why resort to exploding near misses, when the rate of fire/recharge is capable of delivering a large number of volleys on a fleeting target

To soften it up, as not to risk destroying it, if that is the objective.

Aren't they power-adjusting? Or only the blasters can be power-adjusted? Anyway, I wouldn't consider a shield hit to be a near miss in this case, since it's a prerequisite to the destruction/capture of the target, but that's irrelevant to the case.

So, I'll make my point: flak burst, as pertaining to a spherical explosion, can either be bolt-shield interactions (ESB asteroid scene), bolt/asteroid detonation (same scene), shield/asteroid interactions (same scene) or missile detonations (ROTJ in between fleets), this way, they don't require magical tech, or convoluted solutions to explain the phenomena.

Isn't this what I said more or less, I was just giving a sort of reason.

Yeah, I know...

Warspite wrote:Aren't they power-adjusting? Or only the blasters can be power-adjusted? Anyway, I wouldn't consider a shield hit to be a near miss in this case, since it's a prerequisite to the destruction/capture of the target, but that's irrelevant to the case.

Yes they are, ofcourse a successfull hit also seems to rock the ship.

Ofcourse it might be possible that it was simply not on purpose either, though the novels seem to imply it being on purpose, it's not explicit.