@blind spots in 3D space

EDIT:

I could make a point that maneuverability in spacecraft is entirely dependent on the Thrust/Mass ratio as well. Larger ships with more powerful and economical drives and larger fuel reserves would probably outperform fighters.

..but then, this is Star Wars, and one really doesn't want to overthink the mechanics of it. Save that for a Traveller campaign. ;3

I would like to point out that the Millennium Falcon (which we see chasing a TIE fighter later on) can't outrun an Imperial-class Star Destroyer and when Han brags about how fast his ship is he says about outrunning "big Corelian ships", so at least the original idea was that bigger = faster (not agile tho, but that's another matter).

Or Han was just being a lying braggart...

Or Han was just being a lying braggart...

He thinks outrunning big ships is more impressive than small ones, doesn't matter whether or not the Falcon is able to do so.

Also, images don't lie! We see him slowly catching up to a TIE Fighter (ANH, when they arrive to the brand new Alderaan Asteroid Field ^TM ) and we see him not being able to outrun ISDs on numerous occasions.

@blind spots in 3D space EDIT:

I could make a point that maneuverability in spacecraft is entirely dependent on the Thrust/Mass ratio as well. Larger ships with more powerful and economical drives and larger fuel reserves would probably outperform fighters. ..but then, this is Star Wars, and one really doesn't want to overthink the mechanics of it. Save that for a Traveller campaign. ;3

I would like to point out that the Millennium Falcon (which we see chasing a TIE fighter later on) can't outrun an Imperial-class Star Destroyer and when Han brags about how fast his ship is he says about outrunning "big Corelian ships", so at least the original idea was that bigger = faster (not agile tho, but that's another matter).

I wish I could draw like that. Curse you and you sketching skills

Or Han was just being a lying braggart...

He thinks outrunning big ships is more impressive than small ones, doesn't matter whether or not the Falcon is able to do so.

Also, images don't lie! We see him slowly catching up to a TIE Fighter (ANH, when they arrive to the brand new Alderaan Asteroid Field ^TM ) and we see him not being able to outrun ISDs on numerous occasions.

Again ship size, weight class, etc becomes relatively meaningless in space as you don't have any gravitational forces (weight) to overcome. They also have a massive inertia and massive engines (judging by the intro. to SW:ANH) meaning that they can in all likelihood travel at fairly extreme velocities and then maintain those speeds pretty comfortably.

Simple put, a bigger engine will go quicker.

OMG guys, the gun on my outrider mini doesn't spin all the way around!

It clearly shouldn't have a 360 arc! FFG screwed up big time!!11!1!!!111!one!!1

Hey, there's no blind spot between the turrets on the falcon. In fact, there was an overlap where both turrets could hit. Han said something to the effect of kills in that overlap counting double...

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

Maybe when Veterans hits that will change.

Hey, there's no blind spot between the turrets on the falcon. In fact, there was an overlap where both turrets could hit. Han said something to the effect of kills in that overlap counting double...

Yes, there is a sweet spot where both turrets can hit, but there's also a spot where neither turret can aim, simply based on the physical limitations of the ship.

And juking and banking won't do you a lot of good because that throws off the aim (as anyone who's played X-Wing Alliance will tell you).

According to the movies, the two quad gun positions it has seem to only have a ~90 degree traverse.

Lazy game design? Lazy game design. IMO the Falcon should have an aux arc like the Firespray does and should have costed less.

Here's a movie still taken from Episode IV (from the same sequence you linked.

This is the inside of one of the Falcon's turrets. Note the big, TIE like window the gunner looks out of. The traverse cone of the turret is lined up with this window as you see in the clip.

These turret windows are on the top and bottom of the ship, aligned along its vertical axis.

As we established, the firing cone of the turret is lined up with the window, meaning the firing cone looks like the image below.

Were the turret confined to a 90 degree traverse, that cone would look like this:

We can demonstrate that this isn't the case by looking at almost every exterior shot of the Falcon: the turret is resting parallel to the ship at the maximum of a 180 degree traverse.

Were the traverse limited to 90 degrees, this position wouldn't be possible.

That is the same as taking Semis and Winnebagos and making them better than a tank in combat. That is crazy talk.

Or is it?

Or Han was just being a lying braggart...

He thinks outrunning big ships is more impressive than small ones, doesn't matter whether or not the Falcon is able to do so.

Also, images don't lie! We see him slowly catching up to a TIE Fighter (ANH, when they arrive to the brand new Alderaan Asteroid Field ^TM ) and we see him not being able to outrun ISDs on numerous occasions.

Again ship size, weight class, etc becomes relatively meaningless in space as you don't have any gravitational forces (weight) to overcome. They also have a massive inertia and massive engines (judging by the intro. to SW:ANH) meaning that they can in all likelihood travel at fairly extreme velocities and then maintain those speeds pretty comfortably.

Simple put, a bigger engine will go quicker.

They still have a mass. (Weight depends on other high-gravity objects in vicinity).

The interesting question is the ratio of engine output to ship's mass. A fighter should have a MUCH better ratio, as it basically only needs to transport its own engine, some fuel, weapons and a chair. Whereas a freighter has a lot of more hull and unimportant stuff (more mass) to move. On the long run, with bigger engines, you reach higher speed. BUT in a combat situation faster accereration and decelaratiois much more important, and there should light weight fighters normally win without problems.

Apart from very special cases like maybe the Falcon. But in this game the freighters have so much better dials than the fighters, it is hilarious.

Apart from very special cases like maybe the Falcon. But in this game the freighters have so much better dials than the fighters, it is hilarious.

That is, in part, due to the limitations of the maneuver templates. There are not enough speeds to choose from to differentiate enough.

The large bases mitigate that somewhat. The Falcon lacks the 3 turn and its tighter maneuvers are rendered less impressive by the size of its base.

The Outrider has an insane dial but admittedly it is the sports car version of the YT-1300.

The rest of the game's big heavy ships (the YV-666, the Lambda, the Decimator and the Ghost) have much brickier dials.

And fixed weapons never have a 90% firing arc. Silly lasers, you can't shoot 45% to your right!

Here is a cool sketchup animation of the turret in action. Allegedly based on shots from the TFA trailer that show the turret's rotation, but at the very least it's a fan's plausible interpretation:

https://youtu.be/wKnPO2Qnpg0

Here is a cool sketchup animation of the turret in action. Allegedly based on shots from the TFA trailer that show the turret's rotation, but at the very least it's a fan's plausible interpretation:

https://youtu.be/wKnPO2Qnpg0

No way!

According to the movies, the two quad gun positions it has seem to only have a ~90 degree traverse.

Lazy game design? Lazy game design. IMO the Falcon should have an aux arc like the Firespray does and should have costed less.

Here's a movie still taken from Episode IV (from the same sequence you linked.

This is the inside of one of the Falcon's turrets. Note the big, TIE like window the gunner looks out of. The traverse cone of the turret is lined up with this window as you see in the clip.

These turret windows are on the top and bottom of the ship, aligned along its vertical axis.

As we established, the firing cone of the turret is lined up with the window, meaning the firing cone looks like the image below.

Were the turret confined to a 90 degree traverse, that cone would look like this:

We can demonstrate that this isn't the case by looking at almost every exterior shot of the Falcon: the turret is resting parallel to the ship at the maximum of a 180 degree traverse.

Were the traverse limited to 90 degrees, this position wouldn't be possible.

But when depressed that much the gunner clearly couldn't see to fire.

When aimed forward like that it's slaved to the cockpit not the gunnery position as shown in x-wing alliance.

Here is a cool sketchup animation of the turret in action. Allegedly based on shots from the TFA trailer that show the turret's rotation, but at the very least it's a fan's plausible interpretation:

https://youtu.be/wKnPO2Qnpg0

No way!

In fact yes that is the way, here is the proof:

In red circle we can see that turret is aligned with hull. Also note that gunners window is aligned FORWARD.

In this shot after Rey crashed into ground we can see maximum rotation of the turret without rotating whole mechanism. So we can assume this was maximum rotation for ultra fast moves, that caused those clanks that cause this discussion.

And here we go. In Tie chase scene we have it on a plate: gunners window is aligned BACKWARDS prooving that indeed whole hull segment is rotating.

We can assume that for small aiming correction pic 1&2 mechanism was used while for adjusting whole field of fire Falcon used bigger mechanism.

But when depressed that much the gunner clearly couldn't see to fire.

Assuming they're gunning by window alone rather than using the targeting systems you clearly see in ANH.

According to the movies, the two quad gun positions it has seem to only have a ~90 degree traverse.

Lazy game design? Lazy game design. IMO the Falcon should have an aux arc like the Firespray does and should have costed less.

Here's a movie still taken from Episode IV (from the same sequence you linked.

This is the inside of one of the Falcon's turrets. Note the big, TIE like window the gunner looks out of. The traverse cone of the turret is lined up with this window as you see in the clip.

These turret windows are on the top and bottom of the ship, aligned along its vertical axis.

As we established, the firing cone of the turret is lined up with the window, meaning the firing cone looks like the image below.

Were the turret confined to a 90 degree traverse, that cone would look like this:

We can demonstrate that this isn't the case by looking at almost every exterior shot of the Falcon: the turret is resting parallel to the ship at the maximum of a 180 degree traverse.

Were the traverse limited to 90 degrees, this position wouldn't be possible.

But when depressed that much the gunner clearly couldn't see to fire.

When aimed forward like that it's slaved to the cockpit not the gunnery position as shown in x-wing alliance.

This would be why they're staring so intently at their gunnery displays instead of out the window in most of the shots in the movies...

They're not aiming by eye, they're aiming by targeting computer.

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

That might be because it really is a better gun platform than a Defender. The Falcon carries as much firepower as an X-wing in each of its two turrets. It's got more in common with a light gunship than it does any civilian freighter.

yeah like an AC-130 gun ship... however an AC130 is still a C-130 and flys like one!! it aint going to outmaneuver a fighter!!!!!! ANY fighter.. just saying!! lol

Flying in Atmosphere isn't exactly the same as in space.

When you look at the Rebel (and to a lesser extent Scum) faction, some of the best ships they have (Falcon, Outrider, YV, etc...) are converted civilian freighters and are, arguably, as good as or better than dedicated starfighters such as the Interceptor and Defender. That is the same as taking Semis and Winnebagos and making them better than a tank in combat. That is crazy talk.

Unlike comparing a Tie-fighter to a tank... that's not crazy talk at all

Point here is, you are comparing cars to tanks, as opposed to commercial airplanes to military airplanes.

The C-130 to AC-130 comparison is much better.

TIE fighters are by far not comparable to a modern fighter jet, since those are way more heavily armed than the TIE seems to be (maby even more armored).

But since the ships in SW are more based on WW2 airplanes, it would be fair to compare them to those instead.

So, say you have the TIE, a basic no-nonsense lightly armored and armed but fast fighter.

That's the military craft.

But then you take a civilian craft, bolt some .50 cals on it in some makeshift turrets, and that's the falcon.

Sure, it's very dangerous to that zippy but lightly armored fighter.

But it's hardly a B-17... (which would be the equivalent of the gozanti or something of that size)

God... Just.

Whenever you see somebody complaining about a turret, their avatar is an Imperial ship. Every **** time.

Guess you bumper bowling no skillers can't face the truth.

Then there's this s**t.

You can't face the truth that your faction sucks.

God... Just.

Whenever you see somebody complaining about a turret, their avatar is an Imperial ship. Every **** time.

Guess you bumper bowling no skillers can't face the truth.

Then there's this s**t.

You can't face the truth that your faction sucks.

Faction does not suck.

It just requires more ideas in list building and skill in playing

This is the angle there the Gunners have visual and instrumental sight on their targets:

They can quickly align the guns towards the enemy using the sight through the windows and aim with the aiming aiming sight.

Outside of the visual sight angle the gunners need to search targets using instrumental sight.

Force Users feel the (near future) relative position of enemy ships and might not use the instrumental aiming sights to get a shot.

So better get Force Users as gunners, even if they are more expensive (Luke, cough cough)

The guns are capable to fire while fully depressed.

Just remember: Don't get cocky

wait you are worried that it should have a aux arc but NOT worried that an OLD freighter is more maneuverable then some dedicated FIGHTERS??

Have you actually seen the movies this game is based on?