StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Yeah. Is it ever explained anywhere why SW fighters behave exactly like atmospheric fighters when in space, and why nobody ever flips around and blasts people on their tails? I know why it happened out of universe, but....

Do they really behave like atmospheric fighters, or does the camera just follow them that way? Hmmm?

Havok wrote:Do they really behave like atmospheric fighters, or does the camera just follow them that way? Hmmm?

I'm not digging out my copies of the OT just for this thread, but at the very least we saw pilots crying out in terror that they CAN'T SHAKE 'EM! Of course, total non issue since they should have been able to rotate on their axis and blast them considering how close they are. From memory, they bank and turn without any thrust in those directions, and their only thrusters are all pointing backwards.

I also recall the comparison of the WW2 footage that the Millenium falcon vs Tie Fighters scene was copied from.

If someone is chasing you and you're burning away from them, shutting off your engines and rotating the ship might not be such a great idea. Once you're in the land of ludicrous delta-v, you can say all sorts of things around why they fight the way they do.

adam_grif wrote:
I'm not digging out my copies of the OT just for this thread, but at the very least we saw pilots crying out in terror that they CAN'T SHAKE 'EM! Of course, total non issue since they should have been able to rotate on their axis and blast them considering how close they are.

Yeah, because I'm sure the TIE Fighters wouldn't then nail them, as they stop manoeuvring and drastically increase their Target profile.

Not to mention the moment the rebel pilot turns his engines off, the TIE fighter behind him is going to crash into him at some ungodly high speed and turn the both of them into mechanical pancakes.

Though I wonder if it would be feasible for a highly shielded fighter to do this deliberately to a minimally-shielded TIE Fighter; risky, sure, but it stands to reason that shields which are meant to absourb strikes from the weapons in the setting should be able to absourb the impact of a fighter that has been given a fraction of a second of additional acceleration.

They mention "Stabilizers" my guess is that's the reason they fly the way they do.

Also in both the battle of Yavin and Endor (and presumably the battles of Coruscant and most others) the ECM jamming reduces their engine performance by a staggering margin, so they can't really make use of the thousands of g acceleration they are capable of in open space.

Which brings up an interesting question, if ships/fighters capable of only single or double digit G accelerations be outright disabled/lose control if they fly too close to a Star Destroyer while it's ECM field is up.

open_sketchbook wrote:Though I wonder if it would be feasible for a highly shielded fighter to do this deliberately to a minimally-shielded TIE Fighter; risky, sure, but it stands to reason that shields which are meant to absourb strikes from the weapons in the setting should be able to absourb the impact of a fighter that has been given a fraction of a second of additional acceleration.

Given that the shielding only protects the fighters from glancing blows and they survive the same number of direct hits as a TIE (1), it's still going to be turned into paste as the TIE is careening into him with an acceleration of some 6000 Gs.

IIRC the OT ICS did mark the 'front' of the X-wing´s engines as magnetic(?) thrusters for maneuvering.

Weren´t unshielded TIEs debunked anyway as an EU game mechanic brainbug by observing shield-flashes around the patrol flight in ANH?

I rationalised the 'atmospheric' trajectories as a consequence of needing to constantly weave to make it harder for point defense to get a fix and keeping the attack speed mostly comprehensible to eyeball mk.1 due to horrendous ECM. Relativistic speeds aren´t of much use in confusing, dense action when you get splattered on the shields of a capital ship before you even register it´s there.

The OT ICS said the small ports in the front of the X-Wing nacelles are retro-thrusters; the ARC-170 has similar retro-thrusters which are concealed behind louvers in the same equivalent location. There is the also the Thrawn Trilogy's "aetherric rudders" or whatever, but that adds all kinds of problematic shit if the craft can 'grab' and 'act against' the vacuum itself. Still other craft, such as the Geonosian Nantex-class territorial defense fighters, have extensive repulsor/tractor-beam arrays, which can be used to maneuver against neighboring masses. I believe the same tactic was used in Isard's Revenge by Rogues piloting TIE Defenders.

Ronsu wrote:Weren´t unshielded TIEs debunked anyway as an EU game mechanic brainbug by observing shield-flashes around the patrol flight in ANH?

That's not how canon works. All you can gather from that scene is that TIE/ln fighters belonging and attached to the Death Star had shields, not all TIE/lns. We don't see TIE/lns in the other films have those shield flashes when hit by something (like in the asteroid chase scene where Ties bump into space rocks and blow up).

Obviously they fly that way because there is air in space in the Star Wars galaxy. That's also why sound carries.

Stofsk wrote: That's not how canon works. All you can gather from that scene is that TIE/ln fighters belonging and attached to the Death Star had shields, not all TIE/lns. We don't see TIE/lns in the other films have those shield flashes when hit by something (like in the asteroid chase scene where Ties bump into space rocks and blow up).

Yeah, I realized that. Still, one can hope.

The TIEs carried by the Death Star may be a special case due to the function of their roving home base. Once the station discharges it´s main weapon at a planetary target and the local space is filled with various ejecta, patrolling TIEs need more than the basic navigational shielding for protection when zooming around the area.

It's possible the shield flashes around TIEs are interactions between the near-misses and their navigational shields.

Regardless, we've seen that the shielding on Rebel fighters only affords the ability to reduce a destructive hit to one that is rather damaging, and even then, only sometimes. It's still better than nothing, of course.

[quote="Cykeisme"]
Regardless, we've seen that the shielding on Rebel fighters only affords the ability to reduce a destructive hit to one that is rather damaging, and even then, only sometimes. It's still better than nothing, of course.[/quote]

Although it is not necessarily better than the weight costs of the shields. This is the similar situation to the Zero versus Wildcat in WW2. While the Wildcat had armor, it was slower and less maneuverable.

Stofsk wrote:

Ronsu wrote:Weren´t unshielded TIEs debunked anyway as an EU game mechanic brainbug by observing shield-flashes around the patrol flight in ANH?

That's not how canon works. All you can gather from that scene is that TIE/ln fighters belonging and attached to the Death Star had shields, not all TIE/lns. We don't see TIE/lns in the other films have those shield flashes when hit by something (like in the asteroid chase scene where Ties bump into space rocks and blow up).

Ender worked out that due to its own thrust stream heat and such, not to mention the extremely hot exhaust of other craft, it would need basic shielding, and all spacecraft would.

Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice to disregard the crap EU which says TIE/lns had no shields, because of 'lol empire is evil they don't even care about their own pilots', I would. The movie clearly shows shield flashes. It's just that the canon policy is inclusive of all the shit in the EU.

Given the nature of space travel in general (where cosmic radiation could cook space travellers), as well as Star Wars in particular (where a glancing hit is survivable with some shielding, where it wouldn't be if there wasn't any shielding), I'd prefer to say TIE/lns did have shields.

Stofsk wrote:Don't get me wrong, if I had a choice to disregard the crap EU which says TIE/lns had no shields, because of 'lol empire is evil they don't even care about their own pilots', I would. The movie clearly shows shield flashes. It's just that the canon policy is inclusive of all the shit in the EU.

Yeah but the movies take precedence in canon and cannot be contradicted. So if they show TIEs with shields, they have shields. If the EU tries to say they don't they are contradicting canon.

An easy explanation is more then one model TIE fighter. The Empire built the things for years if not decades, no reason to assume they are all the exact same. An F-16A and an F-16C Block 50 for example look almost the same (the air intake is a bit different) but the main issue is the internal systems are far different providing the block 50 with a lot of new capabilities. The Death Star being a high value unit might have shielded TIEs, while a random Star Destroyer in the Death Squadron does not because of limited production.

One of my favorite scenes in the first season of Babylon 5 was when a Starfury was in precisely the same kind of "enemies on my tail" situation and pivoted around while still traveling on the original vector to nail them.

The reason why they fly like WWII fighters is because the space action was based on WWII combat footage. Why do Star Destroyers have these dinky, vulnerable bridges up on their superstructures? Why do they even have superstructures? Because that's how WWII warships were built.

Ever wonder what those white straps on the bottom of the X-Wing flight suit were supposed to be?





Looks like they were trying to evoke the idea of a parachute harness. That would be useful if needing to eject in atmospheric flight but not of much use in space. One, there's nowhere to fall. Punching out, you're just floating around and hoping someone will rescue you. Two, the helmets are open so you'd die in seconds anyway. The TIE pilots seemed a bit better-prepared in that regard.

jollyreaper wrote:One of my favorite scenes in the first season of Babylon 5 was when a Starfury was in precisely the same kind of "enemies on my tail" situation and pivoted around while still traveling on the original vector to nail them.

Hence why I call it the "Sinclair Maneuver" and yeah it's not nearly as great of an Idea as Babylon 5 and New Battlestar Galactica like to make it look.

Punching out, you're just floating around and hoping someone will rescue you. Two, the helmets are open so you'd die in seconds anyway. The TIE pilots seemed a bit better-prepared in that regard.

I've heard them talk about some sort of seal that comes out from the neck area and latches to the visor or something automatically, remember Biggs told Porkins to "Eject" before he was splashed.

Why do Star Destroyers have these dinky, vulnerable bridges up on their superstructures? Why do they even have superstructures? Because that's how WWII warships were built.

Most sci-fi ships seem to have "Vulnerable bridges" except for maybe some of the ships in Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica, which have no clear bridge locations from just looking at them. Imperial and Federation ships seem to be the most frequent of these.

The original series Galactica's bridge was right in the nose. B5's CIC was in a bit of a vulnerable spot but the station wasn't intended for heavy combat. New Galactica explicitly states that the CIC is in the center of the ship, about as well protected as can be.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheBridge

Azron_Stoma wrote:

Punching out, you're just floating around and hoping someone will rescue you. Two, the helmets are open so you'd die in seconds anyway. The TIE pilots seemed a bit better-prepared in that regard.

I've heard them talk about some sort of seal that comes out from the neck area and latches to the visor or something automatically, remember Biggs told Porkins to "Eject" before he was splashed.

Good point. Iv'e seen in an x-wing comic the ejection seat provides some kind of shielding to the pilot protecting them from the vacuum for a limited time. A quick wiki provided this tidbit, the X-wing is equipped with a Guidenhauser ejection system, which can also be fitted to TIEs. Couldn't find any details on it though.

adam_grif wrote:

Havok wrote:Do they really behave like atmospheric fighters, or does the camera just follow them that way? Hmmm?

I'm not digging out my copies of the OT just for this thread, but at the very least we saw pilots crying out in terror that they CAN'T SHAKE 'EM! Of course, total non issue since they should have been able to rotate on their axis and blast them considering how close they are. From memory, they bank and turn without any thrust in those directions, and their only thrusters are all pointing backwards.

In reality, the flaw is trying to recreate WWII combat with space ships. It looks exactly like WWII fighters in action which makes no sense given the medium. Same reason why we see smoke blowing backwards from R2 when he gets hit. Obviously, there's not going to be smoke in space. Consider the usual example of kicking up dust. In an atmosphere, kicking my boot in the dirt will loft a cloud of dust. On the moon, each dust mote would travel a parabolic arc back to the surface the same as if I'd kicked up marble-sized gravel on Earth. Assuming that the X-Wing maintained a constant velocity, any explosion from R2 would appear "static" to the viewer, glowing sparks traveling in all directions. And let's not even get started on the idea of a "top speed" for fighters in space. There's no top speed, there's only the maximum amount of delta-v the vehicle can perform -- change in velocity. In combat operations, a realistic space fighter might limit delta-v on given vectors to some arbitrary rate as a matter of fuel conservation but that will depend on many variables.

The usual argument for fighter-style maneuvering in squishy scifi is that the technology has power to spare and it's easier to train pilots to fly one way (atmospheric) than to try and teach them to fly both ways. But as you pointed out, "I can't hold 'em!" shows the complete flaw in that line of thought. That's one of the few things the new Galactica got right. The original Galactica's ships and effects were done by old Star Wars hands so those ships could so easily fit into the Star Wars universe in terms of look, feel, and performance. The Vipers also suffered from the same illogic of aerodynamic maneuvering. The new Galactica still let them swoop and dive but added reaction controls and allowed for off-axis turns.

If we want to be strictly realistic, it's likely that space fighters and atmospheric fighters will be two entirely different animals and one trying to play in the realm of another will be at a severe disadvantage. You might have a space fighter that can launch from a planet and an atmospheric fighter that can descend from orbit but it will never perform as well as a purpose-built vehicle. Compare WWII float planes with land-based variants. Compare purpose-built boats and land vehicles with their amphibious models. An amphibious tank makes for a barely adequate boat and an amphibious boat makes for a poor car. Consider the Terrafuega. Ok as a light aircraft, mediocre as a car.

I've also wondered why the space battles seem to be very flat. What if you were to jump to hyperspace going "up" to escape when you've been encircled?