| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The point I was trying to make is that newer vehicles aren't always faster. They might be superior in other ways though.
The MiG-25 Foxbat is an excellent example. It was designed originally to shoot down a high altitude, high speed bomber, the VB-70 Valkyrie, that eventually got canceled. The Soviets needed an interceptor and the Foxbat was the result.Then the e Vaslkyrie got canceled the Soviets then had to come up with a new use for the Foxbat, and it eventually found a role as a reconnaissance craft.
When the west noticed the MiG 25, they were very worried about it, and wondered how the Soviets could have produced such a fast fighter. THey even went to far as to post a reward for one, which was claimed by a defector. When the west got a look at the Fobat, they discovered that the plane was actually rather crude. Big powerful engines produce a lot of thrust. It wasn't that sophisticaed a plane after all.
I don't know why F-15 pilots would be surprised by the Mig-25'S thrust and acceleration. The Foxbat is still the fastest fighter jet that the USSR ever produced.
The main reason why top speeds haven't gone up in fighters over the last 50 years is simple, more speed doesn't help. Maneuverability drops off in proportion to the square of velocity. So places that are going faster turn in wider circles.
Modern fighters are superior in ways other than sheer speed.
Back to Star Wars...
Naturally we can all change whatever we don't like, but there are some reasons to back up the values given by Lucasfilm. Those TIE engines might be small, but they supposedly produce a lot of thrust for thier size. That is pretty much the whole point behind the TIE fighter series of ships. If you don't buy into that concept then you will have problems with the speeds of TIE/lns, too. I don't hacve problems with the high performance of the Clone Wars era stuff. It was top of the line stuff produced by a superpower during wartime. I can see the Eta being faster than most fighters since it was an interceptor and interceptors are required to be faster.
Personally I have a hard time believing that a rag tag band of rebels can somehow find the means to produce a string a cutting edge fighters that are superior to what the Republic or the Empire produced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Also, what is 30 years difference when routine starship travel has been around for thousands of years. |
Well, boat travel has been around for thousands of years, but there are significant differences in naval technology before and after WWII. And for a 30 year span, look at 1950-1980. War drives massive innovation even in ancient technology. |
But submarines havent been around for a few thousand years....
In the SWU faster than light and 'routine' spacetravel has. |
What exactly do submarines have to do with it? Surface ships improved during those time periods, too.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Also, what is 30 years difference when routine starship travel has been around for thousands of years. |
Well, boat travel has been around for thousands of years, but there are significant differences in naval technology before and after WWII. And for a 30 year span, look at 1950-1980. War drives massive innovation even in ancient technology. |
But submarines havent been around for a few thousand years....
In the SWU faster than light and 'routine' spacetravel has. |
What exactly do submarines have to do with it? Surface ships improved during those time periods, too. |
Ok then, like if its a difference. Nuclear powered carrier ships havent been around for thousands of years.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with ZzphodD have been in the middle of a technology boom for the last couple of centuries, with lots of new things coming along all the time.
The tar Wars Universe appears to be a setting where technology has stabilized. Most improvements are incremental. The big innovations we see in the films, IMO are:
1) Internal hyperdrives for Star Fighters.
2) The Death Star |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Ok then, like if its a difference. Nuclear powered carrier ships havent been around for thousands of years. |
Well, if you're going to exclude any new technologies, your baseline for technological advancement will obviously be stagnant. But let's rule out nuclear power for the sake of discussion. There have been advances in metallurgy, construction, armament and armor, sensors, communications, and a host of other relevant fields contributing to modern warships being drastically more capable than their older counterparts. The reduction in weight of weapons alone can account for a marked speed increase.
I see no reason why there could be no corresponding increase in ability to do new things or do old things better or in new ways in Star Wars.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, and I think we see that with rebellion era tech in Star Wars. But older designs aren't always slower that newer designs, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, not always, but I think it's not unreasonable to see it either way.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Ok then, like if its a difference. Nuclear powered carrier ships havent been around for thousands of years. |
Well, if you're going to exclude any new technologies, your baseline for technological advancement will obviously be stagnant. But let's rule out nuclear power for the sake of discussion. There have been advances in metallurgy, construction, armament and armor, sensors, communications, and a host of other relevant fields contributing to modern warships being drastically more capable than their older counterparts. The reduction in weight of weapons alone can account for a marked speed increase.
I see no reason why there could be no corresponding increase in ability to do new things or do old things better or in new ways in Star Wars. |
But as the advancements havnt been that great for the last few thousand of years or so (stat wise that is), probably there wasnt a quantum leap the last 20 years or so....
If we 'import' the SWU status to our worlds marine technology (your example) there would have been aircraft carriers 2000 BC (even if not nuclear ones)...
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | No, not always, but I think it's not unreasonable to see it either way. |
Not at all. Either view is valid.Most of the evidence from official sources tends to support the higher speeds,though. Much like the short hyperspace times. The evidence stronly supports it, but we dont have to use shorter times.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | But as the advancements havnt been that great for the last few thousand of years or so (stat wise that is), probably there wasnt a quantum leap the last 20 years or so... |
Taking quantum leap in the vernacular, rather than the literal, why does a speed difference of 1 or 2 space units in fighters that go 10 and 11 represent a quantum leap?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | But as the advancements havnt been that great for the last few thousand of years or so (stat wise that is), probably there wasnt a quantum leap the last 20 years or so... |
Taking quantum leap in the vernacular, rather than the literal, why does a speed difference of 1 or 2 space units in fighters that go 10 and 11 represent a quantum leap? |
I havnt said that...what I said was..
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Also, what is 30 years difference when routine starship travel has been around for thousands of years.. If there would be large differences between rebellion and clone wars era ships, then ships from Jedi era would be going backward |
Meaning that why would there be such a great difference during 20 years of space travel that had (with the same technology) been around for a few thousand years with ships a few thousand years old only having slightly worse stats than contemporary ones (ie Rebellion era).
You responded with..
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Well, boat travel has been around for thousands of years, but there are significant differences in naval technology before and after WWII. And for a 30 year span, look at 1950-1980. War drives massive innovation even in ancient technology. |
Obviosly missing the point that 'boat travel' as you refer to has gone from wooden canoes to nuclear carriers during this time... A slight difference from being 'sligtly faster' that is the case in the SWU.
Hence, one could assume that the technology leap during 20 years in the SWU would be 'sligtly' less impressive than the last 20 years in real life..
Get it?
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | But as the advancements havnt been that great for the last few thousand of years or so (stat wise that is), probably there wasnt a quantum leap the last 20 years or so... |
Taking quantum leap in the vernacular, rather than the literal, why does a speed difference of 1 or 2 space units in fighters that go 10 and 11 represent a quantum leap? |
I havnt said that...what I said was..
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Also, what is 30 years difference when routine starship travel has been around for thousands of years.. If there would be large differences between rebellion and clone wars era ships, then ships from Jedi era would be going backward |
Meaning that why would there be such a great difference during 20 years of space travel that had (with the same technology) been around for a few thousand years with ships a few thousand years old only having slightly worse stats than contemporary ones (ie Rebellion era).
You responded with..
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Well, boat travel has been around for thousands of years, but there are significant differences in naval technology before and after WWII. And for a 30 year span, look at 1950-1980. War drives massive innovation even in ancient technology. |
Obviosly missing the point that 'boat travel' as you refer to has gone from wooden canoes to nuclear carriers during this time... A slight difference from being 'sligtly faster' that is the case in the SWU.
Hence, one could assume that the technology leap during 20 years in the SWU would be 'sligtly' less impressive than the last 20 years in real life..
Get it? |
Slightly less I can deal with, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the idea that SW tech has "plateaued" is false. They keep building newer and better classes of ships, and "old" ones, even a few decades old, such as the dreadnaught are considered obsolete. (Interestingly here the dreadnaught is obsolete in large part because it's too slow.)
If you want an example of wooden ship technological increase, look at the 30 years around the War of 1812. Again, driven by frequent military trouble, we made marked improvements in our wooden sailing ship's armor, in the form of the Constitution, and in speed, in the form of New England trading ships.
Wooden sailboat technology was roughly 5,000 years old at the time.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | But as the advancements havnt been that great for the last few thousand of years or so (stat wise that is), probably there wasnt a quantum leap the last 20 years or so... |
Taking quantum leap in the vernacular, rather than the literal, why does a speed difference of 1 or 2 space units in fighters that go 10 and 11 represent a quantum leap? |
I havnt said that...what I said was..
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Also, what is 30 years difference when routine starship travel has been around for thousands of years.. If there would be large differences between rebellion and clone wars era ships, then ships from Jedi era would be going backward |
Meaning that why would there be such a great difference during 20 years of space travel that had (with the same technology) been around for a few thousand years with ships a few thousand years old only having slightly worse stats than contemporary ones (ie Rebellion era).
You responded with..
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Well, boat travel has been around for thousands of years, but there are significant differences in naval technology before and after WWII. And for a 30 year span, look at 1950-1980. War drives massive innovation even in ancient technology. |
Obviosly missing the point that 'boat travel' as you refer to has gone from wooden canoes to nuclear carriers during this time... A slight difference from being 'sligtly faster' that is the case in the SWU.
Hence, one could assume that the technology leap during 20 years in the SWU would be 'sligtly' less impressive than the last 20 years in real life..
Get it? |
Slightly less I can deal with, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the idea that SW tech has "plateaued" is false. They keep building newer and better classes of ships, and "old" ones, even a few decades old, such as the dreadnaught are considered obsolete. (Interestingly here the dreadnaught is obsolete in large part because it's too slow.)
If you want an example of wooden ship technological increase, look at the 30 years around the War of 1812. Again, driven by frequent military trouble, we made marked improvements in our wooden sailing ship's armor, in the form of the Constitution, and in speed, in the form of New England trading ships.
Wooden sailboat technology was roughly 5,000 years old at the time. |
I never asked for an example of wooden ship tech increase. Thats beside my point.
Well, with that fast improvement ships a few thousand years back must have gone backwards (given the fact that they have been flying routinely through space for that time).... which, coincidentally was my point...
Looking at Tales of the Jedi tells you they werent...only slightly slower than 'todays' ship (about half). If only doubling speed in a few thousand years isnt a plateu I dont know what is.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | If only doubling speed in a few thousand years isnt a plateu I dont know what is. |
A few thousand years of peacetime.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its only a few thousand years of peace time because the EU hasn't filled in the gaps with video games yet.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
