Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

We do get to view the inside of the Carracks bridge in an issue of tales, its pretty detailed

 

Where is the problem?

We have different-sized Providences, different-sized Recusants, Munificents, Lucrehulks, Venators ... . Why not different-sized Marauders now, too?

Artistic freedom is a great thing, especially if it allows you to p..s all over continuity.

 

Here are a few more good pics of the TIE Advanced v1 from comic-con:

http://www.rebelscum.com/2014-SDCC/SDCC-2014-Hasbro-Star-Wars-2/image2.asp
http://www.rebelscum.com/2014-SDCC/SDCC-2014-Hasbro-Star-Wars-2/image7.asp

 

....or maybe the Marauder is normal-sized and the Carrack is ginormous....


Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

So, new rebels trailer: is this our first freighter on freighter fight in the franchise?

If so, it seems odd to me - wouldn't most pirates have modified transports rather than fighter/cap ship combos for cost and training reasons (oh, and transporting the stolen goods of course)?

 

Well aside from a lot of WEG and short stories

Edit:

So it is a CEC Vex-100 and it has a sensor scrambler

 

FTeik - Do we actually know that these clone war era ships were intended to be different sizes or was this just artistic license, like Obi-Wans blocky beard?


darthscott3457 - V1 looks good, except I would prefer if the out sections of the wing had TIE solar panels instead of grey metal.

Has anyone noticed the freighter design in the behind Kallus when he order his trooper to fire on Kanan? It kind of looks like a Gozanti, but different but with differences, like 4 engine pods. Anyone get a closer look?

 

We have a set of sizes in the Incredible Vehicles books. And the sizes, I'm told, were derived directly from the computer models.

We also have the sizes from the Incredible Cross Sections books (Complete Vehicles being the most recent compilation of those) - and these don't match.

Result - either there's two sizes - two different classes with the same appearance - or one of the books is "wrong". And if the ICS: RoTS book is (being written before TCW)- then some of the movie imagery might end up having to be ignored.

Unless the figures in the ICS books were estimated from screencaps, rather than "handed down, Word Of Lucas" to the author.

 

Well, the Databank might be the place to check, if they had bothered to include the ships from ROTS.

(The Trade Federation battleship entry uses the CW Incredible Vehicles data, not the ICS, for what that's worth)

 

They also included the "Republic Attack Cruiser" - with the Incredible Vehicles length of 1155m:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/republic-attack-cruiser

rather than the Incredible Cross Sections length of 1137m.

 

It is weird that they have so many ships missing in the database from the movies. No Acclamator, but they have the Republic Tugboat?

Its either throw some lengths out, or make -I, -II, and -III if necessary, like the Mandator.

 

Good point, forgot about that one!

But the main bones of contention are the "Separatist dreadnaught", the Recusants and the Munificents. While the first two there's still debate on whether they're the 'same ships' as in ROTS, the last one was clearly the same - and the size difference is very significant (825m in the ICS to 1199m in Incredible Vehicles)

(On the "Separatist dreadnaught", the Databank once again doesn't help by saying it only appears in the CWAS, doesn't have an entry for the Invisible Hand, and lists General Grievous' vehicle as "Separatist dreadnaught". Thanks for clearing that up, guys!)

 

The Millennium Falcon's length given in the Databank is the "standard YT-1300" 34.75m, rather than the 34.37m length given in Millennium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual.


They also leave out any sizes for the Death Stars - maybe to avoid annoying ICS fans?

 

Why stupid?

If you have participated in this thread on a regular basis, you should be aware, that several ship-classes have changed size over the years, with the different measurement from ROTS/ROTS:ICS on the one side and TCW/TCW:Incredible Vehicles being only the last offenders, while DV's Executor went from 8 km to 12.8 km, 17.6 km, 12 km to 19km. At least with the new stuff we can claim, that we are talking about different versions of a vessel based on the same hull-concept.

 

I'm sure they deeply care about annoying them.

The Falcon bit was odd, but was in the old online Encyclopedia as well.

I had asked Filoni at C6 about the differences between ships in the movies and the CWAS, and he said that as far as he knew they were supposed to be the same. I know, not very illuminating.

 

Considering, that during its lifetime the Millenium Falcon went through several upgrades and modifications, slight changes in dimensions shouldn't be too much of a problem. At one point in time the vessel might have been 34.75 meters long, at another 34,37 meters.

 

I was surprised the Death Stars were not under vehicles in the first place, and that no dimensions were listed. I would say its an extremely high likelihood the 120 km and 160 km will stick. The Imperial Handbook should cement it, if it is indeed part of the new canon.

 

I figured the 34.37m length might have been due to the crash referred to in the Millennium Falcon novel - after which the Falcon was rebuild using parts from two different YT-1300 models.

 

Only if you want to keep Endor too small to have a breathable atmosphere and around 1G of gravity. I mean 4,900 km is less than Mars and we know, how that one looks.

 

On DSII I think they could of at least comprised and went for something in the middle, I agree but it is what is now.

 

I thought that the implication was that they had a similar computer model of the Falcon and based it upon that.

I think there was some information that wasn't passed on to the writers - the Death Star book had the old stats for the Lucrehulks, for example.

 

I think the 34.75m length first appeared in a Blueprints book, before the Owner's Workshop Manual came out.

 

Well, that is part of the problem. Instead of directly looking at the movies or production-notes or whatever the authors of the new material take their information from now inofficial and often contradicting sources, continuing the mess the Disney-cleanswipe was supposed to correct.

 

Ah, but they made a point that in-universe, all the prior data on the Millennium Falcon was based upon false plans of the YT-1300.