9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

"Or" not "Out"

3,000 metric tons seems a bit... high for the CR-90. Especially when you compare it to the Encumbrance capacity of 3,000 in this system. Are your numbers skewed on that, or did someone goof? I don't think that the CR-90 would have the cargo space for it.

I'm no expert on weights of ships, but could those numbers have been the weight of the ship itself? 3,000 tons is approximately 1,000 F-150s. Did you mean 300 tons?

Nope. It's not skewed or in error. That's the established cargo capacity the CR-90 has always had since specs were established for it. And the ISD has a cargo capacity of 36,000 metric tons. The YT-1300 has a cargo capacity of 100 metric tons. The YZ-775 is listed as having a cargo capacity of 400 metric tons, and the YZ-900 (which is roughly the size of a 747 jetliner) has a cargo capacity of 500 metric tons. The YZ-900 is one third the length of a CR-90, so those numbers are accurate . This is why I have such a problem with the FFG ship encumbrance values. They don't even correlate with the source material in any measure.

Again, I'm no expert on weights and cargo capacity, but I'm not sure the canon numbers correlate with reality.

13 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Again, I'm no expert on weights and cargo capacity, but I'm not sure the canon numbers correlate with reality.

Yeah, they do. Remember, that the YT-1300 is about the same size as many crab fishing boats, and those things carry hundreds of tons of cargo in their holds. A CR-90 is 150 meters long, That's the size of a WWII Bogue class Escort carrier. And far less than what even a small real world maritime freighter can carry. For example:

Quote

Seawaymax , 28,000 DWT the largest vessel that can traverse the St Lawrence Seaway These are vessels less than 740 feet (225.6 m) in length, 78 feet (23.8 m) wide, and have a draft less than 26.51 feet (8.08 m) and a height above the waterline no more than 35.5 metres (116 ft).

(from Cargo Ship ).

So, if anything, Star Wars cargo capacities are light , compared to real world maritime ships.

Well, the seawaymax is a dedicated cargo ship (and doesn't have to make as much room for what the CR-90 would have to), but your point is taken. It just still seems a bit high to me (and it doesn't take into account actual cubic space available).

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Well, the seawaymax is a dedicated cargo ship (and doesn't have to make as much room for what the CR-90 would have to), but your point is taken. It just still seems a bit high to me (and it doesn't take into account actual cubic space available).

No, they don't. They just list the weight the ships can carry, and there's good reason for it. Weight is the most important factor for space ships, since that's what determines if said ship can even get off the ground , much less get into space.

Yeah, but if your cargo space that can hold 3,000 tons is 2 cubic inches, you can't fit 1,000 F-150s in it.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, but if your cargo space that can hold 3,000 tons is 2 cubic inches, you can't fit 1,000 F-150s in it.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Thank you P-47. Yes "or" not "out". That's what I get for using my phone instead of an actual keyboard.

My question was, do any of the new books definitively list the cargo capacity for either the ISD or the CR-90? Canonically that is, not some 3rd, 4th or 5th party interpretation or what someone else thinks it should be.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

"out" the CR-90? I don't get the question.

If you mean how a CR-90 fit inside the ISD, that's the hangar, not the cargo hold.

If you're asking about if the canon sources list the actual cargo capacities for those two ships, yes, they do. The CR-90 is listed as having a cargo capacity of 3000 metric tons, whereas the ISD is listed as having a cargo capacity of 36,000 metric tons. IF you're asking exactly what specific cargo each carries, of course not. That's because the cargo a given ship loads and unloads changes regularly, and no two ships even carry the same cargo at any given time. what these sources give is the maximum cargo capacities for these ships.

Normally you would have already posted the answer if you had it, but You're dancing around the issue seemingly hoping that we'd all let it slide.

Which current canon sources have cargo in tons for the cr-90 and isd, and what do those same current canon sources (should they exist) say the cargo for the cr-90 and isd is? And what are the page numbers those stats are on?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, they don't. They just list the weight the ships can carry, and there's good reason for it. Weight is the most important factor for space ships, since that's what determines if said ship can even get off the ground , much less get into space.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, but if your cargo space that can hold 3,000 tons is 2 cubic inches, you can't fit 1,000 F-150s in it.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

ROFLMAO!!!!!

P-47 used hyperbole to make a valid point.

What do you think the limiting factor for the space shuttle was, and why was it the vehicle used to launch pieces of the iss which got assembled in orbit? The volume of the shuttle's cargo bay, largest of any human space craft to date, was the limiting factor, because the iss is super lightweight for it's size. Simply having a large empty cargo bay adds a significant amount of weight (and drag, which at the speeds the shuttle needed to obtain orbit was far more than weight) compared to having a small one. And if we were going for efficiency you could give a spacecraft wings to get to high altitude with an air breathing engines and then use rockets to get from there to orbit. Rockets aren't the best or most efficient way to get from surface to orbit, they're just the easiest to make tech to do it. If we used a plane to carry a rocket to high altitude we'd be able to get bigger payloads into orbit more cheaply (and there have been a lot of proposals to do just that). If you're going to claim star wars spacecraft don't have wings I'll point you to the jtype star skiff which is a flying wing, as the most obvious example. You've got zero factual basis for claiming that weight is the most important factor. Whichever factor is the most limiting factor is the most important factor. If you can carry x volume and Y weight and y weight occupies 2x volume then volume is the limiting factor because you won't be able to load more than 0.5Y weight in the ship. Most often volume is the most limiting factor. Btw the enc of an object is defined to be it's limiting factor.

One person in this conversation has a master's in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT and it's not Michael Trampert. On top of that masters I also have a phd in mechanical engineering and my job since 2014 has largely revolved around simulating satellites.

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

"Or" not "Out"

3,000 metric tons seems a bit... high for the CR-90. Especially when you compare it to the Encumbrance capacity of 3,000 in this system. Are your numbers skewed on that, or did someone goof? I don't think that the CR-90 would have the cargo space for it.

I'm no expert on weights of ships, but could those numbers have been the weight of the ship itself? 3,000 tons is approximately 1,000 F-150s. Did you mean 300 tons?

RAW defines the listed enc to be only what can be easily accessed while in flight and specifically said that most ships could carry far more should they need to.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Canonical Star Wars ship technical specs, as used in all of the technical source books such as the Visual Dictionaries, all use metric tons for cargo capacity. In other words, cargo capacity is measured by weight only.

Wait, are you actually arguing that Star Wars ship holds have no/infinite volume? Encumbrance is a semi-abstract value that takes weight and volume into account, but doesnt correlate exactly into either, as I explained earlier.

I don't know what point you're trying to make by reiterating that cargo capacity jas been listed by weight before and, frankly, I'll be surprised if you do.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

4 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

One person in this conversation has a master's in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT and it's not Michael Trampert. On top of that masters I also have a phd in mechanical engineering and my job since 2014 has largely revolved around simulating satellites.

Yeah, well, it's hardly brain surgery, though.

On 10/3/2019 at 11:39 PM, penpenpen said:

Yeah, well, it's hardly brain surgery, though.

You're right, it's rocket science 😝 😎

OP: *has question answered within four replies to the thread*

Everyone Else:

lol, it's cool. It's not often I get to someone destroy TG's arguments. Even if he does stick his head in the sand and pretend everything is going his way.

1 hour ago, Ahrimon said:

lol, it's cool. It's not often I get to someone destroy TG's arguments. Even if he does stick his head in the sand and pretend everything is going his way.

Well I'm glad that I entertained you then. The hardest part is having the patience to debate him until he gives up, proving him wrong (when he's wrong, which is frequently but not always) isn't that hard.

You're a more patient man than I am. 😂

I wouldn't mind having debates with him if he would be willing to acknowledge that other points of view exist and that there is room for multiple ways of doing things rather than always coming across as his way is the absolutely only way and anyone who doesn't agree is wrong.

On 10/3/2019 at 9:00 PM, EliasWindrider said:

Normally you would have already posted the answer if you had it, but You're dancing around the issue seemingly hoping that we'd all let it slide.

Which current canon sources have cargo in tons for the cr-90 and isd, and what do those same current canon sources (should they exist) say the cargo for the cr-90 and isd is? And what are the page numbers those stats are on?

I already told you which ones. The Complete Visual Dictionary New Edition (published in 2018) contains these stats.

On 10/3/2019 at 9:22 PM, EliasWindrider said:

P-47 used hyperbole to make a valid point.

What do you think the limiting factor for the space shuttle was, and why was it the vehicle used to launch pieces of the iss which got assembled in orbit? The volume of the shuttle's cargo bay, largest of any human space craft to date, was the limiting factor, because the iss is super lightweight for it's size. Simply having a large empty cargo bay adds a significant amount of weight (and drag, which at the speeds the shuttle needed to obtain orbit was far more than weight) compared to having a small one. And if we were going for efficiency you could give a spacecraft wings to get to high altitude with an air breathing engines and then use rockets to get from there to orbit. Rockets aren't the best or most efficient way to get from surface to orbit, they're just the easiest to make tech to do it. If we used a plane to carry a rocket to high altitude we'd be able to get bigger payloads into orbit more cheaply (and there have been a lot of proposals to do just that). If you're going to claim star wars spacecraft don't have wings I'll point you to the jtype star skiff which is a flying wing, as the most obvious example. You've got zero factual basis for claiming that weight is the most important factor. Whichever factor is the most limiting factor is the most important factor. If you can carry x volume and Y weight and y weight occupies 2x volume then volume is the limiting factor because you won't be able to load more than 0.5Y weight in the ship. Most often volume is the most limiting factor. Btw the enc of an object is defined to be it's limiting factor.

One person in this conversation has a master's in aeronautics and astronautics from MIT and it's not Michael Trampert. On top of that masters I also have a phd in mechanical engineering and my job since 2014 has largely revolved around simulating satellites.

Weight is still the primary factor in determining cargo loads. Volume is secondary.

On 10/3/2019 at 10:09 PM, EliasWindrider said:

RAW defines the listed enc to be only what can be easily accessed while in flight and specifically said that most ships could carry far more should they need to.

Which is also contrary to how canon handles ship cargo capacities, which lists the maximum load a ship can carry. As such, the encumbrance value should also be the absolute limit of what a ship can carry.

On 10/4/2019 at 1:30 AM, penpenpen said:

Wait, are you actually arguing that Star Wars ship holds have no/infinite volume? Encumbrance is a semi-abstract value that takes weight and volume into account, but doesnt correlate exactly into either, as I explained earlier.

I don't know what point you're trying to make by reiterating that cargo capacity jas been listed by weight before and, frankly, I'll be surprised if you do.

No. I'm simply saying that official Lucasfilm technical specs don't list volume. They only list weight. It's not saying that these ships have infinite volume.

15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I already told you which ones. The Complete Visual Dictionary New Edition (published in 2018) contains these stats.

Weight is still the primary factor in determining cargo loads. Volume is secondary.

Which is also contrary to how canon handles ship cargo capacities, which lists the maximum load a ship can carry. As such, the encumbrance value should also be the absolute limit of what a ship can carry.

No. I'm simply saying that official Lucasfilm technical specs don't list volume. They only list weight. It's not saying that these ships have infinite volume.

1) incorrect, you've said the dictionaries contain this type of information, you haven't said what pages of this dictionary lists what cargo numbers for the cr-90 and isd. And I believe the reason that you haven't said that is you're trying to hide that you haven't checked the latest edition which I believe doesn't have them because if they did it's almost certain that someone would have added it to the canon wookieepedia pages like they did for the YT-1300.

2) bs. Drag is the primary force opposing motion, not weight. For large volumes drag is dominated by volume, for small volumes drag wouldn't be strongly dependent on volume but then it would be the most limiting factor (more limiting than weight). A spaceship can't be filled with more volume than it has space to fill, a ship can be overloaded with weight, but that would cause it to not reach orbit rather than not get off the ground.

3) regardless of what you think should be done, it's not how it is done. Ffg provides stats relevant to an rpg intended to simulate the star wars movies, none of the movies involve hauling freight for credits. if you want a galactic freight hauling game why would you expect it to be found in a simulator of movies where freight hauling happens off screen, especially when said game give handwave effort to modeling trade/commerce? What we do see onscreen opening scenes of a new hope is a ship get boarded. When a ship is boarded the only cargo that matters is what you can easily get to (e.g. that crate of blasters you were smuggling).

4) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lucasfilm not mentioning something does make it unimportant in universe. Also you are very loose with the label "technical specs" when nothing I've scene possess anywhere close to the level of detail needed for it. The "technical" (scare quotes) data would at best rarely be barely sufficient for in universe marketing purposes. Few people whose likelihood doesn't depend on it want to read tech specs, even few fans would buy it even if they created consistent pseudo physics needed to define the science fantasy physics. Heck, Lucasfilm didn't even bother to create interior sets of the falcon that would fit inside the stage prop in docking bay 94. Lucasfilm does not make tech specs for star wars, they put out what in some cases barely qualifies as marketing data but no more than that. I have not seen a (canon) complete CAD file for a single star wars ship.

18 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

1) incorrect, you've said the dictionaries contain this type of information, you haven't said what pages of this dictionary lists what cargo numbers for the cr-90 and isd. And I believe the reason that you haven't said that is you're trying to hide that you haven't checked the latest edition which I believe doesn't have them because if they did it's almost certain that someone would have added it to the canon wookieepedia pages like they did for the YT-1300.

2) bs. Drag is the primary force opposing motion, not weight. For large volumes drag is dominated by volume, for small volumes drag wouldn't be strongly dependent on volume but then it would be the most limiting factor (more limiting than weight). A spaceship can't be filled with more volume than it has space to fill, a ship can be overloaded with weight, but that would cause it to not reach orbit rather than not get off the ground.

3) regardless of what you think should be done, it's not how it is done. Ffg provides stats relevant to an rpg intended to simulate the star wars movies, none of the movies involve hauling freight for credits. if you want a galactic freight hauling game why would you expect it to be found in a simulator of movies where freight hauling happens off screen, especially when said game give handwave effort to modeling trade/commerce? What we do see onscreen opening scenes of a new hope is a ship get boarded. When a ship is boarded the only cargo that matters is what you can easily get to (e.g. that crate of blasters you were smuggling).

4) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lucasfilm not mentioning something does make it unimportant in universe. Also you are very loose with the label "technical specs" when nothing I've scene possess anywhere close to the level of detail needed for it. The "technical" (scare quotes) data would at best rarely be barely sufficient for in universe marketing purposes. Few people whose likelihood doesn't depend on it want to read tech specs, even few fans would buy it even if they created consistent pseudo physics needed to define the science fantasy physics. Heck, Lucasfilm didn't even bother to create interior sets of the falcon that would fit inside the stage prop in docking bay 94. Lucasfilm does not make tech specs for star wars, they put out what in some cases barely qualifies as marketing data but no more than that. I have not seen a (canon) complete CAD file for a single star wars ship.

1. I haven't given a page number because I don't own the book. I read it at Barnes & Noble . Ergo I can't look up the page number. Regardless, the Wookieepedia pages I linked to also confirm that said information is in that book. The Visual dictionary has full cutaway diagrams and technical specs of both ships. The ISD also appears in the Rogue One Visual Dictionary . and the CR-90 also appears in Star Wars: Ships of the Galaxy (4 Sep 2015). This book specifically contains full details, diagrams and spec of fifteen ships, including the CR-90. It should also be noted, that while the Incfredible Cross sections book (which also has full technical specs of the ISD) was published in 1998, John Knoll specifically used that book when working on Rogue One to make sure that the interior of the Star Destroyers was accurate. To quote:

Quote

While working on the Imperial-class Star Destroyers of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story , model maker John Knoll worked from Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections to make sure that what the audience saw inside the ship matched what was known about Star Destroyers. [13]

In fact, here's the actual article in which this is mentioned, and the excerpt itself:

Quote

Knoll’s job also requires painful, almost microscopic scrutiny. At one point he reviews a Star Destroyer torn in half in battle—the reflections, the textures, the realism of the bent metal. The model maker is working from the book Incredible Cross-­Sections of Star Wars: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft to make sure that what an audience sees inside the ship matches what’s known about Star Destroyers. No one wants to be the subject of a subreddit dedicated to power converters and the jerks who put them in the wrong place.

Ergo, this book is still used as canon reference material by Lucasfilm itself .

2 Weight is the main issue that determines whether or not something can get off the planet and into orbit. Greater weight requires more more fuel to lift off and reach escape velocity. More fuel adds more weight, requiring even more fuel, etc. So, weight is indeed the primary factor.

3, What I want is consistency . What I want is faithfulness to the source material.

4. I beg to disagree with you there. If very few Star Wars fans (or sci fi fans in general) were interested in technical specs of ships, such books wouldn't be as popular as they are. Sci fi fans eat up technical information about their favorite ships, weapons, and gadgets from their favorite shows and movies. This is why publishers produce sourcebooks such as the Visual Dictionaries, Starship owners manuals , Incredible Cross Sections , and the like. People buy them. They want to know the "nitty-gritty" of their favorite sci fi tech.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

4. I beg to disagree with you there. If very few Star Wars fans (or sci fi fans in general) were interested in technical specs of ships, such books wouldn't be as popular as they are. Sci fi fans eat up technical information about their favorite ships, weapons, and gadgets from their favorite shows and movies. This is why publishers produce sourcebooks such as the Visual Dictionaries, Starship owners manuals , Incredible Cross Sections , and the like. People buy them. They want to know the "nitty-gritty" of their favorite sci fi tech.

I've gotta agree with Tramp on that one.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

1. I haven't given a page number because I don't own the book. I read it at Barnes & Noble . Ergo I can't look up the page number. Regardless, the Wookieepedia pages I linked to also confirm that said information is in that book. The Visual dictionary has full cutaway diagrams and technical specs of both ships. The ISD also appears in the Rogue One Visual Dictionary . and the CR-90 also appears in Star Wars: Ships of the Galaxy (4 Sep 2015). This book specifically contains full details, diagrams and spec of fifteen ships, including the CR-90. It should also be noted, that while the Incfredible Cross sections book (which also has full technical specs of the ISD) was published in 1998, John Knoll specifically used that book when working on Rogue One to make sure that the interior of the Star Destroyers was accurate. To quote:

In fact, here's the actual article in which this is mentioned, and the excerpt itself:

Ergo, this book is still used as canon reference material by Lucasfilm itself .

2 Weight is the main issue that determines whether or not something can get off the planet and into orbit. Greater weight requires more more fuel to lift off and reach escape velocity. More fuel adds more weight, requiring even more fuel, etc. So, weight is indeed the primary factor.

3, What I want is consistency . What I want is faithfulness to the source material.

4. I beg to disagree with you there. If very few Star Wars fans (or sci fi fans in general) were interested in technical specs of ships, such books wouldn't be as popular as they are. Sci fi fans eat up technical information about their favorite ships, weapons, and gadgets from their favorite shows and movies. This is why publishers produce sourcebooks such as the Visual Dictionaries, Starship owners manuals , Incredible Cross Sections , and the like. People buy them. They want to know the "nitty-gritty" of their favorite sci fi tech.

Lucasfilm can pluck whatever they want from legends, the plucked the cross section of the isd, that doesn't mean anything else came with it.

The level of "technical" details Lucasfilm has released on anything, does not rise to the level of "technical specifications" the closest they got is the book on the YT-1300. Real technical specs are dull, what Lucasfilm has put out is marketing brochure level, it does not include a cad, it does not include a nut and bolt hyperdrive/sensor suite/shields break down, it does not include material specification of each and every part including the stresses as a function of temperature the part must be able to withstand, the required degree that which parts must be able to blot which types of radiation, or the conductivity/resistance of the power lines and their insulating shells, it does not include assembly/ trouble shooting/repair instructions. It does not include the chemical make up specification of consumables (e.g. fuels) or the chemical composition and reflectivity/color requirements for the primer/paint on the hulls. And that list doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what technical specifications require. Technical specifications for an xwing would be multiple (at least 7 as a lowball estimate) thick books and a dvd for cad. That's not what (most) fans want to read although they might buy it for the dvd with cad designs to turn into an obj file for digital rendering art. And no one wants the 2 meter wide floor to ceiling bookshelf full of books and 20+ DVDs it'd take to provide technical specifications for an ISD. What Lucasfilm puts out is not technical specifications , it's marketing level summary statistics.

Sorry if I trust the wookieepedia canon pages more than what you claim a book you don't own contains

2) bs. Cargo volume largely determines the size, shape, and weight of the vehicle. Drag is a larger force than weight and more fuel is needed to overcome drag than weight, and the weight of the ships (keyed of volume of cargo) is typically far greater than the weight of its cargo. Weight of cargo is a secondary or tertiary effect (which if overloaded can prevent you from reaching orbit, but you couldn't over load it without sufficient volume to carry that much cargo)

3) the rules are self consistent, and you haven't established that RAW isn't faithful to canon material, not providing the information you want does not mean it contradicts the information that you want, it is largely a non statement about the canon information you want.