3 hours ago, Freeptop said:

Here's my problem with that retcon of why s-foils exist on an ARC-170 - why would they ever be closed? If heat is an issue, why not always vent the heat? Every moving part is another point of failure.

Clearly, it's really just "rule of cool", and a way of tying the ARCs to X-Wings, so them actually being there doesn't bother me. It's just the attempts to rationalize them that bother me. No thought was really put into it! They need more imagination

To better fit in the hanger when they've landed?

4 hours ago, JJ48 said:

To better fit in the hanger when they've landed?

Well, aside from the fact that the way the s-foils are designed they'd actually not make very good heat sinks, I can at least buy that explanation a little 😄

8 hours ago, Freeptop said:

Here's my problem with that retcon of why s-foils exist on an ARC-170 - why would they ever be closed? If heat is an issue, why not always vent the heat? Every moving part is another point of failure.

Clearly, it's really just "rule of cool", and a way of tying the ARCs to X-Wings, so them actually being there doesn't bother me. It's just the attempts to rationalize them that bother me. No thought was really put into it! They need more imagination

6 hours ago, eMeM said:

The same can be said for X-wing. Guns and engines change positions, yeah, but from a non-combat to combat, there is no benefit in closing the S-foils. Didn't stop FFG designers.

The X-wing is different as it changed the attack profile, but in non combat scenarios, the reason for closing the s-foils is the same for almost all ships that have them. The ARC-170, ETA-2, Scimitar, TIE/v1, B-wing, X-wing and the Lambda shuttle's S-foils sat below the lowest point of the fuselage and therefore closed up to allow for landing.

15 hours ago, BVRCH said:

The X-wing is different as it changed the attack profile, but in non combat scenarios, the reason for closing the s-foils is the same for almost all ships that have them. The ARC-170, ETA-2, Scimitar, TIE/v1, B-wing, X-wing and the Lambda shuttle's S-foils sat below the lowest point of the fuselage and therefore closed up to allow for landing.

That's fine as an after-the-fact rationalization of the retcon that they're heat sinks. It's just that the design is actually terrible for being a heat sink 😆
Anyway, I've picked these nits enough times. It's all just fun, anyway. (I admit, there are times I'd rather they just not bother trying to rationalize decisions made on the basis of them looking cool - I get more aggravated by the attempts to rationalize them than anything else!)

(Also: it doesn't explain why they keep the s-foils closed until just before they enter battle, rather than just opening them as soon as they clear the landing area... but now I'm really nit-picking).

On ‎2‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 1:21 PM, Frimmel said:

This just seems like my kind of list.

I think you will have 50 points left to play with

estimated cost

- jedi knight 50 (similar to inquisitor)

-sinker 50 (rebel arcs are around 55)

torrent 23 (similar to z-95)

20 minutes ago, freakyg3 said:

I think you will have 50 points left to play with

estimated cost

- jedi knight 50 (similar to inquisitor)

-sinker 50 (rebel arcs are around 55)

torrent 23 (similar to z-95)

That seems generous but that would be neat. I'm certainly eager for the points costs to be presented to us. Lots of points left means upgrades or another ship or something. I've been playing lots of lists lately with all the pilots at the same initiative and really liking it. Having lots of points to tweak this up and create more synergies or versatility would be great. I'm very excited for this new wave.

The only flippable card in the ARC-170 seems to be Palp since it his 'Councilor' disguise seems to mention flip this card, likely to Darth Sidious. I doubt the ship will have a configuration card, hopefully it might get a Sensor slot to represent them having full access to equipment and their name does stand for Aggressive ReConnaissance.

On 2/6/2019 at 12:41 PM, PanchoX1 said:

I don't think there will be one. Which is a shame because a moving s foil Arc-170 model would be sweet.

It would be really awkward too as unlike the X-Wing's which have the wings connected to each other such that you can cross them the ARC's s-foils would have to be connected separately to the engines, for all four of them leading to less friction keeping them in place and you having to open all four up one at a time rather than the squeeze the engine approach of the X-Wings.

22 hours ago, eMeM said:

The same can be said for X-wing. Guns and engines change positions, yeah, but from a non-combat to combat, there is no benefit in closing the S-foils. Didn't stop FFG designers.

To be fair there was at least precedent in games that they could pull from for it, whereas I don't think any game has made use of it for the ARC-170 at all.

1 hour ago, Freeptop said:

That's fine as an after-the-fact rationalization of the retcon that they're heat sinks. It's just that the design is actually terrible for being a heat sink 😆
Anyway, I've picked these nits enough times. It's all just fun, anyway. (I admit, there are times I'd rather they just not bother trying to rationalize decisions made on the basis of them looking cool - I get more aggravated by the attempts to rationalize them than anything else!)

(Also: it doesn't explain why they keep the s-foils closed until just before they enter battle, rather than just opening them as soon as they clear the landing area... but now I'm really nit-picking).

You're clearly not going to be dissuaded so I'm not going to keep trying.

On 2/7/2019 at 4:40 PM, BVRCH said:

You're clearly not going to be dissuaded so I'm not going to keep trying.

I'm an engineer. I'd need to see the mechanical drawings and the specifications that show how the heat dispersal would be more efficient using this method than a static design that doesn't interfere with landing. Being pedantic comes with the job title 😆

(Really, the motors that move the s-foils would generate additional heat that would also need to be dispersed... and having the ability to rotate the s-foils would interfere with whatever medium is being used to move the heat from the weapons to the heat sinks... which would be its own point of failure in addition to the motors themselves - seriously, if the s-foils fail to be able to move, does that mean the ARC can't fire weapons anymore? ... yes, I can keep going as to how just how bad of an idea using s-foils as heat sinks really is).

On 2/9/2019 at 1:26 PM, Freeptop said:

I'm an engineer. I'd need to see the mechanical drawings and the specifications that show how the heat dispersal would be more efficient using this method than a static design that doesn't interfere with landing. Being pedantic comes with the job title 😆

(Really, the motors that move the s-foils would generate additional heat that would also need to be dispersed... and having the ability to rotate the s-foils would interfere with whatever medium is being used to move the heat from the weapons to the heat sinks... which would be its own point of failure in addition to the motors themselves - seriously, if the s-foils fail to be able to move, does that mean the ARC can't fire weapons anymore? ... yes, I can keep going as to how just how bad of an idea using s-foils as heat sinks really is).

It probably is the most efficient way to increase surface area on those wings, but I'm not going to argue 'sci-fi engineering' with you.

Some other designs do have some real world merit though. The B-wings S-foils simultaneously widen the cannons field of fire, decrease attack profile, and increase surface area for the shield projectors. But its all make believe so who cares, it looks cool.

On 2/9/2019 at 3:56 AM, Freeptop said:

I'm an engineer. I'd need to see the mechanical drawings and the specifications that show how the heat dispersal would be more efficient using this method than a static design that doesn't interfere with landing. Being pedantic comes with the job title 😆

(Really, the motors that move the s-foils would generate additional heat that would also need to be dispersed... and having the ability to rotate the s-foils would interfere with whatever medium is being used to move the heat from the weapons to the heat sinks... which would be its own point of failure in addition to the motors themselves - seriously, if the s-foils fail to be able to move, does that mean the ARC can't fire weapons anymore? ... yes, I can keep going as to how just how bad of an idea using s-foils as heat sinks really is).

What about the T-70, where opening the S-foils doesn't even increase the wing area?

I'd say the main problem with S-foils efficiency is that we're talking about space ships, so the only medium of heat transfer is radiation, but with wings opening as narrowly as in the X-wing and ARC a large portion of the energy would just be transferred into the other wing. This was a better desing, scientifically:

But there is a reason X-wing ended up looking like it does.

On 2/7/2019 at 3:18 PM, Freeptop said:

(Also: it doesn't explain why they keep the s-foils closed until just before they enter battle, rather than just opening them as soon as they clear the landing area... but now I'm really nit-picking).

The heat sinks also cover up tiny thermal exhaust ports, and everyone knows you want to keep those protected as much as possible.

10 hours ago, BVRCH said:

It probably is the most efficient way to increase surface area on those wings, but I'm not going to argue 'sci-fi engineering' with you.

Some other designs do have some real world merit though. The B-wings S-foils simultaneously widen the cannons field of fire, decrease attack profile, and increase surface area for the shield projectors. But its all make believe so who cares, it looks cool.

As I've stated before, I'm perfectly fine when the answer is simply, "it looks cool". I just start having problems when people try to retcon on bad scientific explanations for science fantasy

9 hours ago, eMeM said:

What about the T-70, where opening the S-foils doesn't even increase the wing area?

I'd say the main problem with S-foils efficiency is that we're talking about space ships, so the only medium of heat transfer is radiation, but with wings opening as narrowly as in the X-wing and ARC a large portion of the energy would just be transferred into the other wing. This was a better desing, scientifically:

But there is a reason X-wing ended up looking like it does.

The rationalization for X-Wing S-Foils isn't usually that they are heat sinks, though. (If that has been used, I've clearly blocked that from my memory in utter disdain).

I'm all for "rule of cool" in Star Wars, though. I just wish more people were willing to just accept that as the answer

7 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

I'm all for "rule of cool" in Star Wars, though. I just wish more people were willing to just accept that as the answer

That's exactly what people have been arguing, though. The Rule of Cool(ing stuff down via heat sinks).

32 minutes ago, Freeptop said:

As I've stated before, I'm perfectly fine when the answer is simply, "it looks cool". I just start having problems when people try to retcon on bad scientific explanations for science fantasy

That's your opinion, since the tech doesn't actually exist. In this fantasy world; "The S-foil system is most efficient design for the heatsinks but could not be set in a fixed position due to landing and take off procedures" might be a legitimate principle. Applying today's engineering principles on a fictional technology is a moot point.

To go against my own point; don't a lot of today's active heatsink designs use a louvre type mechanic anyway? Or maybe the vents need to be closed for engine ignition and are then opened for take off? Who knows. My point is, whatever the LFL storygroup (or anyone) wants to use as an explanation doesn't really matter because its not real, and there's no point getting upset about it. Do you have the same issues every time a lightsaber comes on screen? Or when you see a TIE fighter (ion engine) in atmosphere? I feel like there are a lot more obvious scientific questions in Star Wars than what you're getting hung up on.

58 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

That's your opinion, since the tech doesn't actually exist. In this fantasy world; "The S-foil system is most efficient design for the heatsinks but could not be set in a fixed position due to landing and take off procedures" might be a legitimate principle. Applying today's engineering principles on a fictional technology is a moot point.

To go against my own point; don't a lot of today's active heatsink designs use a louvre type mechanic anyway? Or maybe the vents need to be closed for engine ignition and are then opened for take off? Who knows. My point is, whatever the LFL storygroup (or anyone) wants to use as an explanation doesn't really matter because its not real, and there's no point getting upset about it. Do you have the same issues every time a lightsaber comes on screen? Or when you see a TIE fighter (ion engine) in atmosphere? I feel like there are a lot more obvious scientific questions in Star Wars than what you're getting hung up on.

<sigh> Some people just don't understand the fun of nit-picking.

Just now, JJ48 said:

<sigh> Some people just don't understand the fun of nit-picking.

<sigh> Some people just don't understand the annoyance of nit-picking.

1 minute ago, BVRCH said:

<sigh> Some people just don't understand the annoyance of nit-picking.

Oh, we understand that perfectly well.

16 hours ago, BVRCH said:

That's your opinion, since the tech doesn't actually exist. In this fantasy world; "The S-foil system is most efficient design for the heatsinks but could not be set in a fixed position due to landing and take off procedures" might be a legitimate principle. Applying today's engineering principles on a fictional technology is a moot point.

To go against my own point; don't a lot of today's active heatsink designs use a louvre type mechanic anyway? Or maybe the vents need to be closed for engine ignition and are then opened for take off? Who knows. My point is, whatever the LFL storygroup (or anyone) wants to use as an explanation doesn't really matter because its not real, and there's no point getting upset about it. Do you have the same issues every time a lightsaber comes on screen? Or when you see a TIE fighter (ion engine) in atmosphere? I feel like there are a lot more obvious scientific questions in Star Wars than what you're getting hung up on.

The heatsink itself is usually a bunch of static fins. An active heatsink usually involves a fan on those fins in order to increase airflow across them. A heat sink works by radiating the heat into air, which then carries away the heat. So you want as much surface area as possible, with an active air flow. It can also involve an internal liquid medium that transports heat from the part that generates it to the heat sink for radiation.

S-Foils are fairly thick, without making use of fins to increase surface area, plus, there's the little bit about a lack of air in space to begin with. In space, you're relying on radiation of electromagnetic waves (usually infra-red) to disperse the heat (which isn't very efficient), or else you're ejecting some sort of matter to carry the heat out.

When it comes to lightsabers, they're either making use of technology well outside our current capabilities (force fields/shields, whatever you want to call them), and using that as the explanation. I can deal with that, since it's not really a "scientific" explanation. When it comes to TIE fighter engines, they've never stated that the "ion engines" work the same way current ion engines work (or at least, they haven't done so in a way that I've encountered, I should say), so I have no problem hand waving that away.

Honestly, I don't care for _any_ of the attempts to rationalize Star Wars tech with real science. I've always preferred George Lucas' explanation, which was along the lines of: it's a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Physics works differently there. And he just left it at that without any further attempt to rationalize anything

On 2/7/2019 at 12:18 PM, Freeptop said:

(Also: it doesn't explain why they keep the s-foils closed until just before they enter battle, rather than just opening them as soon as they clear the landing area... but now I'm really nit-picking).

I have no idea what the actual explanation is, or if there is one, but if the S-Foils are designed to increase the surface area thereby radiating heat more quickly away from the space-craft, then keeping the S-Foils closed would reduce the heat radiated away from the craft and decrease its sensor profile towards other ships. It could keep the S-Foils closed to make it harder for enemy sensors to get a weapon's fix until it reaches its own optimal combat range.

3 hours ago, Freeptop said:

The heatsink itself is usually a bunch of static fins. An active heatsink usually involves a fan on those fins in order to increase airflow across them. A heat sink works by radiating the heat into air, which then carries away the heat. So you want as much surface area as possible, with an active air flow. It can also involve an internal liquid medium that transports heat from the part that generates it to the heat sink for radiation.

S-Foils are fairly thick, without making use of fins to increase surface area, plus, there's the little bit about a lack of air in space to begin with. In space, you're relying on radiation of electromagnetic waves (usually infra-red) to disperse the heat (which isn't very efficient), or else you're ejecting some sort of matter to carry the heat out.

When it comes to lightsabers, they're either making use of technology well outside our current capabilities (force fields/shields, whatever you want to call them), and using that as the explanation. I can deal with that, since it's not really a "scientific" explanation. When it comes to TIE fighter engines, they've never stated that the "ion engines" work the same way current ion engines work (or at least, they haven't done so in a way that I've encountered, I should say), so I have no problem hand waving that away.

Honestly, I don't care for _any_ of the attempts to rationalize Star Wars tech with real science. I've always preferred George Lucas' explanation, which was along the lines of: it's a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Physics works differently there. And he just left it at that without any further attempt to rationalize anything

You just like the sound of your own voice don't you? Why explain an air cooled heatsink when we're talking about spacecraft? Then you argue the exact point I made previously, back to me.. I'm done with this.

1 hour ago, BVRCH said:

You just like the sound of your own voice don't you? Why explain an air cooled heatsink when we're talking about spacecraft? Then you argue the exact point I made previously, back to me.. I'm done with this.

... I have no idea why you even replied to my earlier posts when I pretty clearly stated early on that I just preferred "rule of cool" in the first place.