Thank you Mr. Doyle, but you're still trying to impose the principles of physics on a universe where we know either none exist, or they're so perverted from our own that trying to derive anything meaningful from the scant data we have available to us is an ultimately fruitless endeavor. Personally, I prefer Socrates to Holmes: the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Come to think of it, Occam might also have something to say about the inevitability of your conclusions.

Actually Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory that fits the observed phenomena is generally the correct one.

We observe that they obey many of the same physical laws we do, because they still have gravity, chemical interactions, etc. We also know that the air that surrounds their worlds has resistance, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to breathe, which they clearly do. This means that their ships would also encounter it when they travel through the atmosphere. This leaves two choices: either their ships are made from materials that can withstand ungodly high temperatures, or they've developed a shield that can project around the ship. Since none of the ships seen to exit an atmosphere have any visibly glowing surfaces in space, where heat radiation is a huge problem and luminously glowing metals would stay glowing for long periods of time, the only other conclusion is they must have a shield.

f they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

You wouldn't say that if you were trapped inside the cockpit of a windowless fighter with complete electrical system failure...

This would make for a great crit. Oh you were ioned? Time to randomly assign your dial, weeeeeee!

EDIT:

Or a great premise for the rise of R2-ACe, the astromech who flew his ship when the X-wing canopy was compromised and racked up 2 kills -- Rivaled only by Sienar Fleet Systems OS v11.3, which took over when its TIE Fighter canopy lost translucency, only to return home without its pilot and 4 kills.

Thank you Mr. Doyle, but you're still trying to impose the principles of physics on a universe where we know either none exist, or they're so perverted from our own that trying to derive anything meaningful from the scant data we have available to us is an ultimately fruitless endeavor. Personally, I prefer Socrates to Holmes: the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Come to think of it, Occam might also have something to say about the inevitability of your conclusions.

Actually Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory that fits the observed phenomena is generally the correct one.

We observe that they obey many of the same physical laws we do, because they still have gravity, chemical interactions, etc. We also know that the air that surrounds their worlds has resistance, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to breathe, which they clearly do. This means that their ships would also encounter it when they travel through the atmosphere. This leaves two choices: either their ships are made from materials that can withstand ungodly high temperatures, or they've developed a shield that can project around the ship. Since none of the ships seen to exit an atmosphere have any visibly glowing surfaces in space, where heat radiation is a huge problem and luminously glowing metals would stay glowing for long periods of time, the only other conclusion is they must have a shield.

I think you mean to say 'fewest assumptions,' of which, to my eyes, you are making a great many. Occam's razor is sharp enough to split hairs, but I don't think it's swinging your way right now.

Thank you Mr. Doyle, but you're still trying to impose the principles of physics on a universe where we know either none exist, or they're so perverted from our own that trying to derive anything meaningful from the scant data we have available to us is an ultimately fruitless endeavor. Personally, I prefer Socrates to Holmes: the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Come to think of it, Occam might also have something to say about the inevitability of your conclusions.

Actually Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory that fits the observed phenomena is generally the correct one.

We observe that they obey many of the same physical laws we do, because they still have gravity, chemical interactions, etc. We also know that the air that surrounds their worlds has resistance, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to breathe, which they clearly do. This means that their ships would also encounter it when they travel through the atmosphere. This leaves two choices: either their ships are made from materials that can withstand ungodly high temperatures, or they've developed a shield that can project around the ship. Since none of the ships seen to exit an atmosphere have any visibly glowing surfaces in space, where heat radiation is a huge problem and luminously glowing metals would stay glowing for long periods of time, the only other conclusion is they must have a shield.

I think you mean to say 'fewest assumptions,' of which, to my eyes, you are making a great many. Occam's razor is sharp enough to split hairs, but I don't think it's swinging your way right now.

No, you're definitely wrong. It's explicitly: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

This is often used as follows: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." Since metals with insanely high heat resistance that somehow don't glow white hot when heated to thousands of degrees is a much more complex idea than the idea that they simply use similar technology to the atmospheric shields on docking bays, then it clearly isn't the better one.

EDIT: ...seriously, I'm being trained as a scientist. You don't think I know what Occam's Razor is?

Guys, you might want to chill it a bit.

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Whoooo. Yet another fight.

With dead European guys dancing the cha cha to boot.

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Keep in mind that you are still you and nothing these arguers have to say can effect guys like us... until we let it.

They do not pay the rent nor buy the toy spaceship and the drinks and the jumbo shrimp... sooo... Meh.

The point ain't worth the fuss.

Bear in mind that in this game hardened veterans are Pilot Skill 6, and ace pilots are Pilot Skill 7. Pilot Skill 8 is really something. Pilot Skill 9 hasn't been seen since Wave 2 for good reason.

Also, what's six laser cannons meant to mean? If you're saying number of guns = k(firepower) that's simply false. Utterly false. Count the guns on your ships (Lambda and Falcon in particular) and you'll see. Look up the number of guns on the Mouldy Crow on Wookieepedia.

A ship's attack value is indeed tied to its firepower, but the persistent delusion that that's somehow related to the number of barrels is something I see far too much on this forum and it's got to the point where it sets me off. Look at the guns on the X-wing compared to the TIE fighter, hell, look at the guns on the Outrider. To treat those as equivalent is outright insane.

To claim that FFG assigns attack values to ships based on counting the number of gun barrels on them and leaving it there is almost an insult to the designers.

I get you like Nym, but his ship is not the goddamn Sun Crusher.

not quite but its a good indicator as the only ship on small base with firepower 4 has 5 cannons most if not all 2 firpower have 2 cannons and 3 firepowers have 3/4 large ships if they are using cannon numbers as a guide would be based on individual turrets but i get what your saying but 6 heavy laser cannons is more than a phantom

I mean... the YT-1300 has eight cannons? While I wouldn't object overly to a 4 firepower on the Havoc, it seems like it would be more likely to simply have a cannon slot, like the B-wing, or a Y-wing-like turret slot. As for the pilot skill, there's nothing to suggest that Nym was anything above a pretty decent pilot.

But anyway, I would rather see the Havoc and Skipray Blastboat than the darned K-wing and that HIDEOUS Punishing One. Also,if the Havoc is possible, wouldn't a Guardian Mantis (also from Starfighter) give Scum/Rebels a cloak enabled fighter?

as to the first point the 4 guns to a turret so 3 firepower off one turret total agree on the blastboat and guardian mantis is excelent idea

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Keep in mind that you are still you and nothing these arguers have to say can effect guys like us... until we let it.

They do not pay the rent nor buy the toy spaceship and the drinks and the jumbo shrimp... sooo... Meh.

The point ain't worth the fuss.

Bugh, Jumbo Shrip suck anyway. The little ones are tastier.

as to the first point the 4 guns to a turret so 3 firepower off one turret total agree on the blastboat and guardian mantis is excelent idea

Are you actually going to try and defend this barrel thing? For a start, turn your Falcon upside down. Look what's on the bottom.

FIRE LE EXCEL!

Gaze upon that glorious R². It goes from 0 to 1 and is a measure of linear correlation. It's gone slightly negative, which means it's actually more likely that more guns means less firepower. If we axe the HWK it only jumps to 0.2996, which is still terrible.

Firepower and attack dice being related? Sure, but gun barrels? Pick up an Outrider. You could fit every gun the phantom has in those guns. Four times.

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Wow, get over yourself. Nothing you said here so far makes you the holder of the ultimate truth, nor was there any mention that you don't know what you're talking about, only your argument was attacked (and tone, ofc).

As for assault bomber designs reminiscent of WW2, I think the designs made for Star Citizen's Retaliator show the most care for both aesthetics and functionality. Turrets covering multiple arcs, low front profile, huge torpedo/missile bay, vertical thrusters for landing etc. It also looks pretty sweet, as opposed to the K-wing.

Millennium, you've also clearly lost any sense of objectivity, as in your opening post on this thread you claimed to be "physically ill" at the incorrect assumptions made. What a crock of pretentious bull. I don't care what qualifications you have, you have a piss poor attitude towards others, and it makes the civil people here dismiss you out of hand. Step away for a day or so, and come back when your head has cleared.

Thank you Mr. Doyle, but you're still trying to impose the principles of physics on a universe where we know either none exist, or they're so perverted from our own that trying to derive anything meaningful from the scant data we have available to us is an ultimately fruitless endeavor. Personally, I prefer Socrates to Holmes: the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. Come to think of it, Occam might also have something to say about the inevitability of your conclusions.

Actually Occam's Razor says that the simplest theory that fits the observed phenomena is generally the correct one.

We observe that they obey many of the same physical laws we do, because they still have gravity, chemical interactions, etc. We also know that the air that surrounds their worlds has resistance, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to breathe, which they clearly do. This means that their ships would also encounter it when they travel through the atmosphere. This leaves two choices: either their ships are made from materials that can withstand ungodly high temperatures, or they've developed a shield that can project around the ship. Since none of the ships seen to exit an atmosphere have any visibly glowing surfaces in space, where heat radiation is a huge problem and luminously glowing metals would stay glowing for long periods of time, the only other conclusion is they must have a shield.

I think you mean to say 'fewest assumptions,' of which, to my eyes, you are making a great many. Occam's razor is sharp enough to split hairs, but I don't think it's swinging your way right now.

No, you're definitely wrong. It's explicitly: "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."

This is often used as follows: "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." Since metals with insanely high heat resistance that somehow don't glow white hot when heated to thousands of degrees is a much more complex idea than the idea that they simply use similar technology to the atmospheric shields on docking bays, then it clearly isn't the better one.

EDIT: ...seriously, I'm being trained as a scientist. You don't think I know what Occam's Razor is?

I think you're applying it backwards. Again, it's easy to simplify an argument when you get to construe assumptions as fact, which is wholly antithetical to Occam.

ok link to my havoc and other starfighter stuff thread

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/156220-starfighter-ships-lok-revenants/

would like some of this in wave 7 an 8

f they have this technology, why have the windscreen in the first place? Surely it would be better to not have one and to keep the whole thing armored up to protect the pilot?

You wouldn't say that if you were trapped inside the cockpit of a windowless fighter with complete electrical system failure...

Right, but if electrical system failure is that likely, then I wouldn't want to be in a fighter where I can only look straight ahead without it.

I would be careful about putting to much emphasis on one field of study. Some others on this forum are also in the design field and many on this forum come from a military/ defense background.

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Keep in mind that you are still you and nothing these arguers have to say can effect guys like us... until we let it.

They do not pay the rent nor buy the toy spaceship and the drinks and the jumbo shrimp... sooo... Meh.

The point ain't worth the fuss.

Bugh, Jumbo Shrip suck anyway. The little ones are tastier.

Gimme here dem Jumbo Shrimps!

(بوق) 'Boogh' Vulgar Slang

Bugh is a Persian word literally meaning horn, trumpet or beep.

But can be used instead of the word 'gooz' which means a fart with noise as appose to 'chosss' meaning silent fart.

This is used more by children rather than fully grown adults.

Can we get back to the point that the Jumpmaster 5000 (which is a terrible name, so is the "Punishing One" for that matter) is a gawd-awful ugly design of a ship? If they release one, I'll buy one... Because I'm -that- guy... But it could be a hyper-deluxe Falcon with Interceptor maneuvering and 12 attack dice and I'd never field the thing. I hate it that much.

And the K-Wing, too, is ugly as sin.

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

As for assault bomber designs reminiscent of WW2, I think the designs made for Star Citizen's Retaliator show the most care for both aesthetics and functionality. Turrets covering multiple arcs, low front profile, huge torpedo/missile bay, vertical thrusters for landing etc. It also looks pretty sweet, as opposed to the K-wing.

*splurt* OMG Nerdgasm!

I would be careful about putting to much emphasis on one field of study. Some others on this forum are also in the design field and many on this forum come from a military/ defense background.

I would be careful about putting too much emphasis on being a student. There are plenty of educated folks around, and none of them hold a monopoly on knowledge. Several of them have also graduated already.

Plus, credential waving always reminds me of this:

I'm pretty chill usually, I just don't like people implying I don't know what I'm talking about when I clearly do.

Keep in mind that you are still you and nothing these arguers have to say can effect guys like us... until we let it.

They do not pay the rent nor buy the toy spaceship and the drinks and the jumbo shrimp... sooo... Meh.

The point ain't worth the fuss.

Bugh, Jumbo Shrip suck anyway. The little ones are tastier.

Gimme here dem Jumbo Shrimps!

Bugh

(بوق) 'Boogh' Vulgar Slang

Bugh is a Persian word literally meaning horn, trumpet or beep.

But can be used instead of the word 'gooz' which means a fart with noise as appose to 'chosss' meaning silent fart.

This is used more by children rather than fully grown adults.

One could also say that an abundance of smileys are for teenage girls, but one does not say that. When I say "Bugh", imagine a throaty irritated voice going, Bugggghh. In fact, the G is barely there. Besides. I do many things that are supposedly just for children, like play games on any Nintendo console, Sonic or what have you.

And play with toys like these X-Wing miniatures. Which is something you also do. In the words of Jim Sterling, "Children are just s**ttier versions of adults.*

Can we get back to the point that the Jumpmaster 5000 (which is a terrible name, so is the "Punishing One" for that matter) is a gawd-awful ugly design of a ship? If they release one, I'll buy one... Because I'm -that- guy... But it could be a hyper-deluxe Falcon with Interceptor maneuvering and 12 attack dice and I'd never field the thing. I hate it that much.

And the K-Wing, too, is ugly as sin.

S'really a pretty awful design, yeah. It's just... Really boring.

You know, title lording is precisely why I'm glad I have no such claims.

So that when someone with a prestigious title goofs and I don't. it's that much more shaming to them, that someone so lesser did so much better.

The very, very rare chance I get to rub that in is oh so sweet.

No offense to Falsehood intended. Just, anyone who says, "I'm a _____!"

First off, I gotta say, this thread has been fascinating to read. Now, on to the nitpicks:

Someone made a claim that the huge engine blocking the 6 o'clock view was necessary from a design perspective to stabilize/counter the thrust from the two underslung engines being so far off centerline. If this is so, and the designers were aware enough of the problem to counter it, why not just NOT undersling the engines in a way that needs to be countered? Two bad design decisions don't make a good one, just like two wrongs don't make a right, and two rights don't make a left.

It's the same problem that the Unicorn E-Wing has, with the blaster right over the cockpit. The guys who drew it were more concerned with Rule of Cool than realism.

There was also some talk about why don't the Xwings glow due to atmospheric heat, and how that proves they have aerodynamic shields. Why is a shielding system more likely than, say, a system which captures friction heat from the hull and stores it as energy? Or materials that are able to shed heat into the vacuum faster than you think they should? Perhaps the alloys are impregnated with midicholorians to allow them to push the air out of the way with the Force.

Now, to address the idea of the K-Wing coming to the tabletop: Do we really need another large base turret ship with 3 crew slots? Because that's what we're talking about. Look at the cockpits and turret bubbles on the picture and tell me it's not a Large ship with a 4 man crew. We're talking about a Falcon with a whole bunch of torpedo, missile, and bomb slots. And if the 'it's a turbolaser' crowd wins the argument, we're talking about a Falcon with a 4 die primary turret (5 with Expose!), an extra turret slot, and 3 slots of each type of ordinance. Does that sound fun to fly, with or against?

Plus it's dog ugly.

Why are we discussing the physics of a K-wing in a world where space is either air or water depending on if you're a starfighter or a capital ship?