10 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

the gr75 model in x-wing is between 1/450 and 1/500ish in scale. keep in mind George Lucas describes the passenger deck of the gr75 transporting over 1,000 people comfortably, and thats not the primary purpose of the ship. its the star wars version of a mercantile container ship. In 1/270 scale it would be nearly 2 feet long so they scaled it down for game mechanics

When in the world did George Lucas ever mention any stats about anything?

Von why are you performing necromancy?

Necromancy aside, I just wanted to say that I’ve lived most of my life thinking that the bit on the top was a bridge. Ever since 1996, when the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (man I loved that book) called that the “command pod.”

So yeah, the GR-75 is way out of scale. We’ve known that for...what, like five and a half years?

Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand: why is thread necromancy bad?

Would it be better to make a new thread on the same topic once it's been inactive for too long? Wouldn't that be criticized as redundant?

Otherwise, are long-dead topics deemed unfit for discussion at all? Isn't that a bit hostile for new users, tho?

What would be the solution? Make a new topic and link the old thread in the first post? Is that really needed?

1 hour ago, takfar said:

Not being sarcastic, just trying to understand: why is thread necromancy bad?

Would it be better to make a new thread on the same topic once it's been inactive for too long? Wouldn't that be criticized as redundant?

Otherwise, are long-dead topics deemed unfit for discussion at all? Isn't that a bit hostile for new users, tho?

What would be the solution? Make a new topic and link the old thread in the first post? Is that really needed?

Honestly, if a thread has been dormant for years, you probably should just make a new one. This particular forum tends to go to “sheesh, use the search function, noob!” on a relatively rare basis, so new topics tend to be a better way to cause discussion.

Also, there are a couple dozen or so pretty regular posters over the years that are known to other regulars. We may not know each other IRL, but we recognize each other’s posting styles, POVs, and habits. I tend to vanish for a while, then resurface, usually to agree with SabineKey or agree with/argue with FickleGreenDice, Lackwit and Von are regulars, if Cubanboy doesn’t have a happy Friday post, something is truly and horribly wrong, that sort of thing.

A “forum vet” committing the internet crime of thread necromancy is odd enough that some folks take notice, and maybe poke a little fun.

Edit: the exception to all of this is the Gunboat thread. That can never be allowed to die. As goes the Gunboat thread, so goes X-Wing.

6 hours ago, FatherTurin said:

the exception to all of this is the Gunboat thread. That can never be allowed to die. As goes the Gunboat thread, so goes X-Wing.

So say we all.

Speaking of Necro. Whatever happened to Joe Boss Red7? The gun boat talk reminded me of that guy for some reason. He was a good presence around these parts.

On 10/10/2016 at 5:12 PM, Forgottenlore said:

Never, never, never use on screen, visuals to determine scale. Whether filmed models, cgi, or traditional animation, the visuals are always far too prone to having inconsistent depictions and model making errors to be at all reliable. It's why we have arguments over the size of a-wings, y-wings, tie fighters, hwks, SSDs, cr-90s, and so many other things.

Just accept that the visuals will have errors.

Isn't there supposed to be a shoe in the Battle of Endor? Do we have canon stats for that?

On 10/10/2016 at 5:45 PM, Captain Lackwit said:

When we see somebody climbing into an X-Wing, we know exactly how big it is.

We know exactly how big it is when sitting on the floor of a hangar next to an actor , you mean. That may or may not match how big it is when it's a model (physical or digital) flying next to other models. Film makers try to be consistent, but sometimes mistakes happen, or changes need to be made for the sake of storytelling.

On 10/10/2016 at 5:59 PM, xanderf said:

FWIW, the trivia gallery for the episode went up and confirmed that this is meant to be the same type of ship seen in 'Empire Strikes Back'.

http://www.starwars.com/tv-shows/star-wars-rebels/the-antilles-extraction-trivia-gallery

So...apparently no 'CR70 vs CR90 vs Pelta' sort of variation about it.

Wasn't the ship at the end of RotS declared to be the Tantive IV , specifically, until they realized how obviously different it was and retconned that it was a completely different model?

On 10/17/2019 at 12:50 AM, Hiemfire said:

Okay, @Vontoothskie I get that you have a desire for the scale of things in game to proportionally match their original scale, but dredging up a 3 year old thread? Did you check the date or just reply without bothering to check while deep diving the forum?

I hope D&D Sixth Edition includes the Threadcromancer class.

On 10/17/2019 at 12:50 AM, Hiemfire said:

Okay, @Vontoothskie I get that you have a desire for the scale of things in game to proportionally match their original scale, but dredging up a 3 year old thread? Did you check the date or just reply without bothering to check while deep diving the forum?

ha youre right, googled the forum, saw the post and assumed it was current, didnt notice the date. with all the newbs becoming aware of the new epic format it made sense at the time.

I am still fairly annoyed that people cant comprehend the general size of things, but thats a sisyphean issue... There will always be people who cant do math