Just now, Ironlord said:

That had Carracks, and various classes of Interdictor - but not Dreadnaught-class cruisers, otherwise Wookieepedians would have already noticed and created a canon page for the ship class.

See above

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

See above

That uses "dreadnought" with a small d - not a specific ship name, but a general class:

Catalyst

p279

"It's obvious to all of us that a superlaser of the sort we're postulating would dwarf any ship of the line, even the largest of the dreadnoughts."

p311:

"Star Destroyers and dreadnoughts aren't enough for the Empire?"

Complete Locations page 171

"Many in the Imperial military derided the Death Star as 'Tarkin's Folly,' a self-indulgent engineering experiment that wasted credits, raw materials, and personnel. Emperor Palpatine, they argued, should have used those resources to create more giant dreadnoughts in the same class as the mighty Executor. Both Rebels and Imperials refer to these command ships (as well as other classes of massive capital ships) as Super Star Destroyers."

55 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

That uses "dreadnought" with a small d - not a specific ship name, but a general class:

Catalyst

p279

"It's obvious to all of us that a superlaser of the sort we're postulating would dwarf any ship of the line, even the largest of the dreadnoughts."

p311:

"Star Destroyers and dreadnoughts aren't enough for the Empire?"

Complete Locations page 171

"Many in the Imperial military derided the Death Star as 'Tarkin's Folly,' a self-indulgent engineering experiment that wasted credits, raw materials, and personnel. Emperor Palpatine, they argued, should have used those resources to create more giant dreadnoughts in the same class as the mighty Executor. Both Rebels and Imperials refer to these command ships (as well as other classes of massive capital ships) as Super Star Destroyers."

Thank you, I was having trouble finding the quotes but I think these quotes make it pretty clear that any references to dreadnoughts in canon are referring to SSDs and because of that if they ever bring back the dreadnought class cruiser I don't think they will call it a dreanought.

ISD-I Model variant with Rogue One livery. NO GIRAFFE NECKS though.

On 3/24/2017 at 8:06 PM, Gadgetron said:

The ISD-I is too iconic to leave out of the game, and the Star Destroyer itself is too iconic to have as few titles as it does.

They should errata the titles to match specific models though.

So iconic that only the most hardcore of star wars fans will have any idea what is different from what we have if not having it pointed out . Hey look another big triangle, cool.

56 minutes ago, Swusn said:

Thank you, I was having trouble finding the quotes but I think these quotes make it pretty clear that any references to dreadnoughts in canon are referring to SSDs and because of that if they ever bring back the dreadnought class cruiser I don't think they will call it a dreanought.

Fractalsponge favours Star Frigate over Heavy cruiser for that ship. Maybe they can base it on his version rather than the EU's? Perhaps as a gentle nod to the old EU, call it Katana-class, and reference the Katana fleet?

1 hour ago, Swusn said:

Thank you, I was having trouble finding the quotes but I think these quotes make it pretty clear that any references to dreadnoughts in canon are referring to SSDs and because of that if they ever bring back the dreadnought class cruiser I don't think they will call it a dreanought.

Nope not those quotes. someone, krennic I think, is talking to tarkin about a new ship he's having made and he states it is already almost outdated. That would not be an ssd

13 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Nope not those quotes. someone, krennic I think, is talking to tarkin about a new ship he's having made and he states it is already almost outdated. That would not be an ssd

It's the Death Star that's implied to be making it obsolete:

p153:

They stopped at a massive viewport to observe a new capital ship - a dreadnought - being inaugurated for launch from its bay.

"Completed in less than a standard year," Tarkin said, as if he had built it himself.

"And yet already obsolete?" Krennic said.

Tarkin glanced at him. "A placeholder. I'm certain, however, that it will do until the battle station is deployed."

The two officers had begun to circle each other as they spoke.

"Our main weapon will have more power than ten vessels that size," Krennic said.

19 hours ago, Ironlord said:

The argument basically boils down to "what we see on screen contradicts Disney statements, therefore Disney statements are erroneous and can be ignored"

Saxton took a similar approach to the 8km SSD, 120 km DS1, etc. Eventually, he won - worked with James Luceno on Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy - and got his estimates to replace the old official ones.

Possibly these people will try and do a Saxton and get their ideas canonized, replacing the old ones.

Well, until they do I'm sticking with the canon source as presented by the Lucasfilm Story Group.

I should mention that although I admire those who can empirically analyze, in such detail, every nut an bolt of a ship (mostly because I myself can't do that) in an effort to uncover and correct irregularities, I feel that they should make a point to differentiate between actual inconsistencies and inconsistencies that is the byproduct of the film/art making process. I know they're coming at this from a scientific point of view but they also have to consider the artistic point of view when analyzing films as works of art , which is where I'm mostly coming from and which most people who work on the film's visuals are generally coming from.

Some details in films are not meant to be perceived as actual details, rather they're suggestive details meant to create the impression of reality or aspects of reality like scale, mass, shapes, etc. This applies more so to the OT films, less so the newer ones due to technical limitations back then. To overcome those limitations the visual effects artists had to employ camera tricks and take a number of shortcuts to achieve a desired result while still keeping in line with the production schedule. Such methods, while effective at creating eye catching imagery, can at times contain visual inconsistencies when looked at too closely. This is not to take away from the prowess of the visual effects artists, for what they achieved in those films were both stunning and ground breaking, but there is a roughness behind all that beauty.

Having said all that I'd like to respond to the claim that the Devastator in ANH and the ISDs in Rogue One are not the same class of Star Destroyer(ISD-I). Some claim the details on the ANH model defer from the details of the R1 model which I concur with, but while their approach is to reclassify them as 2 different ships, I on the other hand say the R1 version supersedes the ANH version. I say this because, and this seems to be the approach of the Story Group as well, while we see ISD-Is in the first film, we never got a closeup shot of them apart from the underside of the Devastator in the opening shot of ANH. Although the model was made and shot on camera the topside was never fully completed because it was shot in a way that we, the audience, ended up only ever seeing the bottom and the bridge tower of the SD, so one can argue that the final details may have deferred.

The size of the Tantive IV relative to the size of the main hangar of the Devastator is more an approximation rather than an accurate representation of scale. Though the approximation is very close, it is still 2 separate shots composited together and not 2 physical models shot in the same same scene, so it is reasonable to assume that there's some margin of error.

Besides wouldn't it be easier to just change the sizing of the Corellian Corvette rather than the sizing of the Devastator and end up creating further sizing discrepancies between SD models?

I tend to agree. They did change sizing of corvette - from 150m to 126m. In the context of a 188m hangar (what hangar length would be on a 1600m ISD) I'd have to say the shot is close enough to satisfy.

Similar principles apply to the Avenger and the Falcon on its tower - the Falcon is now bigger - 114 ft instead of 90-something feet (old blueprints) - so the shot, while not a perfect match for 1600m Avenger, is close enough to pass muster.