[chief1983]

As much as my own retcon makes me cringe, it doesn't completely go against the modular nature of the empire's fighters.

[brandx0]

I think while the shape may be somewhat modular, I doubt that they actually mix and match parts on the fly.  If they did, wouldn't it be rather easy to just convert all their TIE Fighters into interceptors?  Why the 20ish years of development to design a slightly different shape of wing between the fighter and interceptor?

[swashmebuckle]

Captain Empire, He's not evil.
When he sees rebels he goes medieval.

^Most amusing SW couplet since Bon Jovi sang "Our chi-m-ney's big and round/so you can come right down" to a gay droid.  I think it's time to reevaluate this project's musical direction

[brandx0]

Swash, I want a new theme song by Monday.  Make it happen. =P

[PHRiSCo]

BTW the width of the front top section in this diagram is off by quite a bit. The width of the that part of the ship is thinner; compare the angle of the deflection plates that the antennas go through between this diagram and screenshots of the movie. The angle in the diagram is about 45 degrees, movie screenshots indicate the angle is more 60-70 degrees.

[brandx0]

Yes this is true, but as I said in an earlier post, those photos of the model show just how inaccurate the EGVV is

EDIT:  Also why I completely stopped using the EGVV schematics at all

[swashmebuckle]

Wow yeah, I just overlaid the profile schematic from earlier in the thread with one of the shots from the gallery (the B&W one with the ruler in it), and it's pretty ridiculous how far off the EGVV is.  Even taking into account that one is supposed to be orthographic or whatever it's called and one is just a snapshot, the real front section looks much more robust from the side view, being substantially "longer" than the naked spar part which is shown as about equal in length in the schematic.  Things like the long hexagonal instrument near the bottom seem way off too.

[brandx0]

Reproduced for comparison, and yes, even though the photo is a photo of a model, and not a proper orthagonal view, with a lens as wide as this (where the perspective effects are almost unnoticable) and the shape of the model itself (which from this angle has very very little depth to it) there should be a close similarity.  Unfortunately, as this image proves, the EGVV is once again on crack, and once again I suggest ANY modeler who wants to make Star Wars models never EVER use the EGVV for ANYTHING AT ALL.  I mean it, Anything.



And before anyone makes this point, even if you stretch it it's not right.  Closer, but still wrong...

[Aardwolf]

I lol'd.

[Droid803]

Actually, I think it looks close enough when stretched. Only really glaring difference is the vertical antennae positioning.

[Snail]

Actually, I think it looks close enough when stretched. Only really glaring difference is the vertical antennae positioning.

"Close enough" is never enough for some people.

[chief1983]

Actually Brand, I thought we were going to go with the fact that the ball parts for the blue TIE Fighter and the TIE Interceptor Mk 2 were the same, and the difference was in the technology behind the panels.  But there were not always enough panels to equip the entire fleet with solely TIE Interceptors, so they sometimes either had only Fighters or a mix of both.

[Thaeris]

As the FotG models are either very close to the film models... or are superior to the EU designs, I'd really like the team to release a set of orthographic scematics. An accurate Nebulon B diagram would be great. 

[brandx0]

Actually Brand, I thought we were going to go with the fact that the ball parts for the blue TIE Fighter and the TIE Interceptor Mk 2 were the same, and the difference was in the technology behind the panels.  But there were not always enough panels to equip the entire fleet with solely TIE Interceptors, so they sometimes either had only Fighters or a mix of both.

Well what I meant was that there was more going on behind the scenes, as in externally they're the same, and most of the major systems are the same, but when talking about the modular bit I meant that A) I'd imagine that they don't build the wings quite so easily detachable, and B) I'd imagine that they simply built new interceptors, rather than retrofitting the fighters.

[chief1983]

I figured they actually would be easily detachable, since the empire probably wants very easily repaired ships.  If a part is malfunctioning, just remove it and pop on a new one, and it's likely a quick process.  Whether or not it's quick enough to slap them on on the way out the door I dunno, but I was thinking that maybe part of the complement could be stored in a disassembled state, and assembled in combat as needed, with only a few flights ready to go immediately.  It would definitely save storage space, but the premise of the Empire using a capital ship where this is a necessity is what doesn't actually make any sense to me.

[brandx0]

Yeah, I figure that if it were that easy, the mechanism would be used on all imperial ships, but we've seen cutaway drawings and interior hangar shots of the ISD, showing how the empire stores it's TIEs on those monsters (newer than the Nebulon B.)

I dunno, it just doesn't ring true to me, I'm all for coming up with solutions for problems that aren't explained in canon, but this seems to apologist to me

[chief1983]

I think the Neb B being an imperial design is itself apologist.  That alone was EU's doing, not the movies

[brandx0]

Yeah, I think that was probably the beginning of the downfall, considering in the movies we see 3 classes of imperial ship, and they all share many design traits, they're dagger shaped, they're huge, and they all have the same (basically) bridge structure on top.  Should be pretty easy to make more ships that fit into the imperial design ethic right?  Apparently not...

[PHRiSCo]

I don't think it should be an issue to use the Frigate in FoTG as either an escort and/or medical ship only, and not have it carry any starfighters at all.

[Mongoose]

Actually Brand, I thought we were going to go with the fact that the ball parts for the blue TIE Fighter and the TIE Interceptor Mk 2 were the same, and the difference was in the technology behind the panels.  But there were not always enough panels to equip the entire fleet with solely TIE Interceptors, so they sometimes either had only Fighters or a mix of both.

Maybe I'm completely loopy/ignorant here, but I thought that the primary difference between the Fighter and Interceptor was that the latter had royally souped-up engines, and that said engines were located in the ball.