The top hatch doesn't have a window. It's impossible to fly upside down and flip off the x-wing pilot you are flying above.
Need gunboats.
Conclusion: Biggest issue with TIE cockpit
You should only do that in a 4g inverted dive anyway.
A 4 g inverted dive with an x-wing, at what range?
About 2 metres... I have a great polaroid of it..
With the technology of hyperdrive, repulsor lifts, holo graphic gaming tables. I'm sure the Tie ship have sensors and cameras mounted around there ships to get a good view of what's happening around them.
The top hatch actually has view ports, they are the long strips iirc.
The top hatch actually has view ports, they are the long strips iirc.
But they aren't an open cockpit to flip the bird out of.
The strangest thing is the TIE windshield looks different from inside the cockpit. On the outside its like:
|
\ /
- -
/ \
|
And from the pilot's view:
| |
= =
| |
(Approximation)
Basically it's like the model maker and set designer didn't use the same schematics. But we know that it's all part of a holographic display system, right? (Or some other space magic) All you have to do is rotate the windshield like 45 degrees.
Go ahead and flip them off, their astromech will see it.
Edited by GrimmyVA 4 g inverted dive with an x-wing, at what range?
About 2 metres... I have a great polaroid of it..
Between this, the Waggner is for Helicopters and Vorpals paint a white tie black comment. It's been a good day for quotes.
I think it also depends on what scale model they were using in some of the set pics the tie interior looks huge. In some of the close ups of the pilot they looked like they are crammed in.
A wing syndrome.
Although i think star wars battlefront has proved without a doubt a wings are actually tiny... if they were the size of y wings like ffg think then i'd have no trouble hitting them in fighter squadron
if they were the size of y wings like ffg think then i'd have no trouble hitting them in fighter squadron
I don't want to too involved in another scale war... But the size FFG made the A-Wing is the canon size per LFL and Starwars.com
I know some people don't accept that size as being accurate, but that's the size FFG was told to use because that's the official size.
I also get that there is a bit of a joke in your post Gadge... But there was a lot of fairly long threads debating the size of the A-Wing when it came out, and FFG's models are actually the correct size per canon.
Edited by VanorDMAnyway size isn't everything. It's how you fly it.
if they were the size of y wings like ffg think then i'd have no trouble hitting them in fighter squadron
I don't want to too involved in another scale war... But the size FFG made the A-Wing is the canon size per LFL and Starwars.com
I know some people don't accept that size as being accurate, but that's the size FFG was told to use because that's the official size.
I also get that there is a bit of a joke in your post Gadge... But there was a lot of fairly long threads debating the size of the A-Wing when it came out, and FFG's models are actually the correct size per canon.
Then why have DICE made them small then?
Just curious
Im actually not *that* bothered, my personal opinion is that someone put the wrong number down when saying what size it was when it was 'canon' . In the same way, if the 'canon' lenght of an xwing was listed as three feet i'd dispute that whatever lucasfilm wrote in a book once as my eyes are telling me its clearly not that size and im basing it on pics of it in context.
But if its 'canon' then surely any licence has to make them to the 'correct' scale i'd have thought? But it seems SWBF has gone the other way from FFG.
Im not trying to have a big argument about this, im just pointing out that in the most recent licensed interpretaion they are very small.
edit2: many people think they are *too* small, as like i say they are very hard to hit in the game or even see compared to the other craft, maybe someobody at EA/DICE felt the issue needed rectifying and went too far the other way?
edit: and lego A wings are not huge either.
Edited by GadgeBut if its 'canon' then surely any licence has to make them to the 'correct' scale i'd have thought? But it seems SWBF has gone the other way from FFG.
That would require speculation on the contracts between LFL and those two companies... Something I'm not going to get into.
But it may be a case where gameplay trumped canon? Maybe they got bad stats?
But FFG said they had models from LFL to make the OT ships, and if you look at Starwars.com it lists the size of the A-Wing at 9.6m vs the 12.5m X-Wing, which at 1/270 scale is exactly right.
Also based on Rebels the A-Wings are not that small.
Edit: I think part of the issue is that there may of been models in the movies that were smaller and at some point someone decided they were too small so changed it. The wookieepedia Legends section actually goes into some detail about the size of the A-Wing
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor/Legends
Edited by VanorDMAnyway size isn't everything. It's how you fly it.
that's what she said.
*badumm*tss*
sorry,
had
to be done..
Not sure that was necessary, as it was implied by the post itself...
yeah, but.. it IS necessary. tradition and such..
But the size FFG made the A-Wing is the canon size per LFL and Starwars.com
As is the size of the HWK, sadly.
Edit: I think part of the issue is that there may of been models in the movies that were smaller and at some point someone decided they were too small so changed it.
Which is the kind of thing that happens a lot in film sci-fi and is why it is a TERRIBLE idea to try and get anything more than a rough ballpark size for spaceships based on the visuals in a movie or TV show. The owner/creator can say how big they intend for a ship to be, but the model makers, set designers and prop masters are not necessarily going to be able to hit that mark.
The top hatch doesn't have a window. It's impossible to fly upside down and flip off the x-wing pilot you are flying above.
Need GUNBOATS!!!!!!!!!!
A 4 g inverted dive with an x-wing, at what range?
About 2 metres... I have a great polaroid of it..
Between this, the Waggner is for Helicopters and Vorpals paint a white tie black comment. It's been a good day for quotes.
Too bad so many don't really understand what this means... so sad... and dangit! Now I have that song stuck in my head!
Ride of the Valkyries, paint it black, The top gun anthem or Danger zone?
Mostly Danger Zone... Ride of the Valkyries is better... but Kenny Loggins keeps coming back like a boomerang.
I caught myself singing it to myself earlier. - Dangerzone that is.
First off this...
Which is the kind of thing that happens a lot in film sci-fi and is why it is a TERRIBLE idea to try and get anything more than a rough ballpark size for spaceships based on the visuals in a movie or TV show.
I always take comments about how big something should be based on measurements from TV or movies with a fairly large grain of salt. Not because I doubt the measurements, but because I doubt that the models are exact. Plus you have to deal with perspective.
I always take comments about how big something should be based on measurements from TV or movies with a fairly large grain of salt. Not because I doubt the measurements, but because I doubt that the models are exact. Plus you have to deal with perspective.
The problem is that a lot of other people DO take them seriously. Very seriously. The entire decades long argument about the size of a SSD is based on one guy dissecting screen images. The arguments over the A-Wing are ALL based on people analyzing on screen footage. And people listen to these arguments and the values get changed and the canon stops being consistent. The Hound's Tooth. No one could say "well, the guys who animated Clone Wars got the size wrong, it is actually supposed to be 33% bigger than it was shown", no, instead the canon size has to change and now it requires some sort of retcon to explain the Nashtah Pup fitting "inside" of it.