The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Light Carrier from SW Rebels
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Light Carrier from SW Rebels Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
There is no in-universe evidence of fighter launch tubes, and even among uniformity oriented types like Imperial TIEs, there would be dimensional issues; how would you launch a TIE Bomber down a launch tube sized for a TIE Fighter?


The reverse of a trash compactor. All four walls are adjustable with preprogrammed sizes for each type of fighter.

A magnetic clamp(s) lock onto the fighter to keep it centered in the tube, Maybe repulsor fields lining the tube as a secondary safety feature to prevent crashes during launch.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9978
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the prevalence of energy fields and tractor beams makes tech like that irrelevant. If you were trying to explain something we see in-universe, I would understand, but tech like this would only be relevant in specific instances where minor races brought their own tech to the battle.

More to the point, the light carrier from Rebels features no launch tubes, so any such discussion would be a) off topic or b) more appropriate for a different topic.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
But the prevalence of energy fields and tractor beams makes tech like that irrelevant. If you were trying to explain something we see in-universe, I would understand, but tech like this would only be relevant in specific instances where minor races brought their own tech to the battle.

More to the point, the light carrier from Rebels features no launch tubes, so any such discussion would be a) off topic or b) more appropriate for a different topic.


If replying to your post is off topic and more appropriate to a different topic, why did you pose the question in your post in the first place?

It seems to me that if you ask a question you'd like an answer. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9978
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very well...

The topic of discussion here is shootingwomprats' home brew stats for the Quasar Fire-Class Bulk Carrier. Please indicate (with references) where the launch tubes are on the Quasar Fire-Class.

If you are unable to do so (which is likely, because it doesn't have any), then any discussion of launch tubes is off-topic, and discussion here should return to the specifics of the topic.

In addition, please indicate (with references) any ship in the Canon SWU that is equipped with BSG-style launch tubes.

If you are unable to do so (which is likely, because there aren't any), any discussion of ships with launch tubes in general is off-topic unless one is posting D6 stats for crossover ships with launch tubes.

Which should be done in a separate topic, rather than co-opting this one.

My mention of the irrelevance of launch tubes because of tractor beam technology was not a question, but an attempt to bring this conversation back on topic.

No one is stopping anyone from writing up stats for ships with launch tubes or discussing how such tubes would function. But to be relevant to this particular topic, the Quasar Fire-Class would need to be equipped with launch tubes.

Which it is not.

Anyway, a tractor beam based launch & recovery system is more versatile (can be used to recover craft, too, rather than just launch them) and flexible (pretty much able to handle any ship that can fit in the landing bay without needing to be physically reconfigured to do so).
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 310

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2017 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could point out that I never said any SWU ship had launch tubes.

I could even point out that I myself said I was willing to drop the off topic conversation before you came in here saber rattling.

But IMHO you seem to need a bad guy to blame. So in order to keep the peace I'll be your bad guy and shut up now. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
RedKnight
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

doesnt the star destroyer atleast in TIE Fighter use something like Babylon 5 style drop launchers ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1025
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RedKnight wrote:
doesnt the star destroyer atleast in TIE Fighter use something like Babylon 5 style drop launchers ?




Pretty close. That's from the "TIE Fighter" game, and is a pretty sensible method. But it's also very different from what we see in TFA, at the very least, where it looks like a more hangar-style affair.
_________________
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude... seeming to be true within the context of [Star Wars].
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedKnight
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

do they all have a drop door or just the forward TIE i wonder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1025
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RedKnight wrote:
do they all have a drop door or just the forward TIE i wonder.


IIRc, they all had a drop door.
_________________
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude... seeming to be true within the context of [Star Wars].
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1006
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huh, I remember them being on a conveyor belt type thing that would drop the fighters out one at a time. Look at the floor: there's only one hatch and it's beneath the lead fighter.



I remember Babylon 5 having individual hatches for dropping each Starfury fighter, but the TIE Fighter video game doesn't have that as I recall; just the one hatch for the lead fighter.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MrNexx
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 1025
Location: Houston

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I easily could be wrong... it's been a fair while since I played TIE Fighter.
_________________
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude... seeming to be true within the context of [Star Wars].
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1006
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I easily could be wrong... it's been a fair while since I played TIE Fighter.


True dat. Now that I bought and reinstalled Empire at War and all the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight games, I'm seriously reconsidereing buying a new joystick to that I can buy and replay all the X-wing/TIE Fighter games.

I still haven't played through X-wing: Alliance. I HATED the fact that they tied maneuverability to speed in that game. It made it impossible to play for me since every time I wanted to turn I tried to go to 1/3 velocity and wound up overcorrecting the thrust and going to zero instead which made my maneuverability even worse. If nothing else, the game should have had a function to turn that off.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9978
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
RedKnight wrote:
do they all have a drop door or just the forward TIE i wonder.


IIRc, they all had a drop door.

That doesn't match with the films, though. In ROTJ, you catch a glimpse of a TIE Bomber on an overhead gantry, which is likely what gave rise to the overhead rack concept in the EU in the first place. The open design is, IMO, much more efficient, allowing for malfunctioning ships or docking points to be removed or bypassed much more easily than would be possible in the confined quarters shown in the X-Wing games.

Babylon 5's Cobra Bays were ultimately a product of their primitive gravity tech available to humans in that universe, whereas the SWUs mastery of gravity is much more advanced. This in turn allows for much greater versatility in practical application.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RedKnight
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a drop launch with the gravity tech gets your fighters out at a higher speed. Nothing says the landing bay has to be the launch bay also, they could be checked out and then reloaded onto the drop launchers but i guess this is off topic theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9978
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RedKnight wrote:
a drop launch with the gravity tech gets your fighters out at a higher speed. Nothing says the landing bay has to be the launch bay also, they could be checked out and then reloaded onto the drop launchers but i guess this is off topic theory.

Video games are not a reliable source of canon, as many of their graphic decisions do not conform to the films or the rest of the EU. Apart from that cut scenes in TIE Fighter, there is no in-universe evidence of their existence, and plenty of evidence for the overhead rack system.

And besides, in the SWU, artificial gravity is as common as dirt. Why limit yourself to a vertical drop system tied to the ship's internal gravity orientation when a horizontal system of variable intensity can be generated just outside of a hangar bay? Such a system would be far more versatile than a cramped drop system that works only with TIEs; in effect, a single gravity field would serve as both launch catapult and arrestor system for any ship large enough to fit into the bay.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0