Chapter X - Blaze of Glory

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
Pray tell, then, how do the scoops work?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'll type it up later, don't have the source with me.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, actually they do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Every little system the fighter carries? Absolutelly everything?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Now, it would seem to me that these supposed scoops would be important enough to appear on the diagram.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why, the scoops on fighters aren't nearly as important as the ones on the capships. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>But they didn't. So, I'm free to ignore them as I please
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So you base you whole knowledge of the WC1 fighters on the four blue prints that came with WC1?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>That depends entirely on your definition of BS.[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, I really don't want to bother with the definitions for BS. Let's just say it's the worst kind of BS there is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Yes, everything
.
And yes, those blueprints are that important. But I don't need to base my entire knowledge of WC1 ships on them, because there are other sources of WC1 knowledge... and the one book that does talk about the WC1 ships blatantly ignores the scoops
.

If that's your definition of BS, then I'm afraid you're quite wrong. It was indeed BS, but it was merely amusing, harmless BS. That type of BS is very much different from what you define as the worst possible type of BS. Anyway, enough BS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matrix

Rear Admiral
I tend to side with Quarto on that one. Let's stick with what's documented, and only the games provide any decent sort of that.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>The Tarawa can go up to 10,000+ with scoops closed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Anything that can go 100x the speed of almost anything else is highly questionable.

And what's all this talk of Business Systems?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matrix:
Anything that can go 100x the speed of almost anything else is highly questionable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But since the Tarawa can go up to speeds like that, so can other capships and fighters can travel even faster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
So if they can go so fast, and pretty quickly, too, than why bother with the booster? Why not just give the Wasp an engine with a higher accel ratio and get it to shut off its supposed scoops every time? Should work... if it had scoops.
And why doesn't our fuel increase slowly? Technically, the faster we go, the more fuel we should gain with these scoops of yours.
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
So if they can go so fast, and pretty quickly, too, than why bother with the booster? Why not just give the Wasp an engine with a higher accel ratio and get it to shut off its supposed scoops every time? Should work... if it had scoops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>First, it will take a long time to accelerate to such speads with the scoops, and second, manuvering would be very hard, and would require the use of manuvering thrusters only. That means you would turn slowly, and waste a lot of fuel while turning. The Wasps booster accelerates quite quickly and lasts for only 30 or so seconds.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>And why doesn't our fuel increase slowly? Technically, the faster we go, the more fuel we should gain with these scoops of yours.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hm, I don’t recall that we can ever run out of fuel in WC other than the AB fuel. Anyhow, while capships can collect fuel faster than they use it, fighters use much more fuel for acceleration, manuvering and basicly fighting.
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>First, it will take a long time to accelerate to such speads with the scoops, and second, manuvering would be very hard, and would require the use of manuvering thrusters only. That means you would turn slowly, and waste a lot of fuel while turning. The Wasps booster accelerates quite quickly and lasts for only 30 or so seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It doesn't take Hunter that long in his piece-of-junk Rapier
. As I said, it's a matter of acceleration. If the Wasp has an engine powerful enough to accelerate at two, three times the normal rate - it'll get to such speeds in seconds. As for manoeuvrability - well, have you tried manoeuvring with the booster?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Hm, I don’t recall that we can ever run out of fuel in WC other than the AB fuel. Anyhow, while capships can collect fuel faster than they use it, fighters use much more fuel for acceleration, manuvering and basicly fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Originally we were supposed to (ref: WC1 manual) run out of fuel but they seemed to decide against it. The thing you don't seem to understand is that the faster you move, the more hydrogen those scoops would bring in
.
At any rate, if you look at any WC ship, their skin is always perfectly smooth, with no sign of those scoops.

But anyway, what's the point of this debate? Ignoring the scoops doesn't make the story wrong - a lot of WC products ignore the scoops. If anything, it makes it more like the games - which is the whole point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
It doesn't take Hunter that long in his piece-of-junk Rapier
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hm, where did Hunter fly with the scoops closed? Anyhow, even if he did, is it said at what speed he was exactly traveling, and how long did it take him to accelerate. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>As for manoeuvrability - well, have you tried manoeuvring with the booster?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, and it ain't all that bad actually.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally we were supposed to (ref: WC1 manual) run out of fuel but they seemed to decide against it. The thing you don't seem to understand is that the faster you move, the more hydrogen those scoops would bring in
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But if your fighter burns the fuel faster than it collects it you won't get much use of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>At any rate, if you look at any WC ship, their skin is always perfectly smooth, with no sign of those scoops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh, I wouldn't say perfectly smooth.
Besides, the scoops are closed. So you wouldn't really see them now would you?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>But anyway, what's the point of this debate?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know, I just like to correct people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Punching in the new nav coordinates, Ian closed his fuel scoops and within minutes was up over three thousand clicks a second and climbing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Chapter 5, Fleet Action. Good enough for ye? I should probably add that I was wrong - it's a Sabre, not a Rapier. But the facts remain. A very high accel ratio, and would be a hell of a lot faster with a Wasp's powerful engine. The Wasp could probably reach 3000 within thirty seconds or so. But it doesn't. It uses a booster. Hmm...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yeah, and it ain't all that bad actually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a waste of fuel
. I find that whenever I make adjustments in flight, I end up about ten thousand klicks out
.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Eh, I wouldn't say perfectly smooth. Besides, the scoops are closed. So you wouldn't really see them now would you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But you'd see the little closed doors or whatever
.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't know, I just like to correct people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I noticed.
But it would do you a world of good to actually be right sometimes
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Yay! Another chapter complete! Now I just have to make several hundred minor corrections, figure out a proper name for the chapter, and I'm ready to post
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dralthi5

Spaceman
Looking forward to reading it. (BTW, I'm well into writing a new WC story, but I'm gonna complete it before I post it.)

------------------
If I'm locked on, there's no such thing as evasive action!
 

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
Punching in the new nav coordinates, Ian closed his fuel scoops and within minutes was up over three thousand clicks a second and climbing.

Chapter 5, Fleet Action. Good enough for ye? I should probably add that I was wrong - it's a Sabre, not a Rapier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, but it did take minutes. The Wasp doesn’t exactly have a super powerfull engine with some super high acceleration. It would still take it couple minutes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>It's a waste of fuel
. I find that whenever I make adjustments in flight, I end up about ten thousand klicks out
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? I’ll have to check that out.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>But you'd see the little closed doors or whatever
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, it would be very easy to see some closed doors underneath the fighter. As I recall, in the KS intro an Excal drops a missile from under it’s belly, except first it has to open up little doors.
We don’t exactly see those in the game do we?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>I noticed.
But it would do you a world of good to actually be right sometimes
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Touché.
I recall being right….. sometimes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Dralthi5: Soon... I've got a chapter name now. And I've gone over the chapter once. Now I just have to go over it again once or twice, and that's it. Personally, I'm just glad to have this chapter over and done with.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>EW Says:
Uh, but it did take minutes. The Wasp doesn’t exactly have a super powerfull engine with some super high acceleration. It would still take it couple minutes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aye, but it dinna have to. Had the scoops indeed existed, then they would have designed a more powerful engine for the Wasp, rather than a booster.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yeah, it would be very easy to see some closed doors underneath the fighter. As I recall, in the KS intro an Excal drops a missile from under it’s belly, except first it has to open up little doors. We don’t exactly see those in the game do we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, but these scoops would have to be along the sides as well, if they're to be any good. And along the top.
Artistic Criticism: Personally, I thought that launching sequence sucked
. They should have had it launched from under the wing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Touché.
I recall being right... sometimes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No you don't
. It's all an optical illusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
Aye, but it dinna have to. Had the scoops indeed existed, then they would have designed a more powerful engine for the Wasp, rather than a booster.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh really? How exactly do you know that?
And why the Waps? Why not any other fighter?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yeah, but these scoops would have to be along the sides as well, if they're to be any good. And along the top.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, they're just on the bottom.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Artistic Criticism: Personally, I thought that launching sequence sucked
. They should have had it launched from under the wing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why? Eariler fighters had missiles under their wings, but that wasn't exactly safe.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>No you don't
. It's all an optical illusion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Damn it! Stop confusing me!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Oh really? How exactly do you know that? And why the Waps? Why not any other fighter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do not underestimate the power of the Dark Side
. I know everything.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Nope, they're just on the bottom.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And how do YOU know that?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why? Eariler fighters had missiles under their wings, but that wasn't exactly safe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know. But it would've looked much neater
. As I said, it was an artistic criticism, not a canon one.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Damn it! Stop confusing me!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. You stop confusing ME.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
And how do YOU know that?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's a very detailed description of the scoops in the Confed Handbook. But of course that's not canon right? Since the dates are wrong and all?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>I know. But it would've looked much neater
. As I said, it was an artistic criticism, not a canon one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IMO, the later ships are to square-like. Not much curved surfaces and stuff like that, and not all fighters even have missiles. I think that having missiles under the wings in the Excal would totaly suck.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>No. You stop confusing ME.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe if you pushed that ON button on the back of your head once in a while you could........ ah forget it. It's to complicated to explain to you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>There's a very detailed description of the scoops in the Confed Handbook. But of course that's not canon right? Since the dates are wrong and all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, if you say so, then I guess I must agree.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>IMO, the later ships are to square-like. Not much curved surfaces and stuff like that, and not all fighters even have missiles. I think that having missiles under the wings in the Excal would totaly suck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, only because the Excal itself sucks
. I much prefer the way the older ships looked. Hmm... maybe it should be a Scim.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Maybe if you pushed that ON button on the back of your head once in a while you could........ ah forget it. It's to complicated to explain to you.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ON button? How do you kno... oh, of course. I suppose you've got one too
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
Well, if you say so, then I guess I must agree.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You finally get it Q.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Well, only because the Excal itself sucks
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thou art an unholly being. Be gone! <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR> I much prefer the way the older ships looked. Hmm... maybe it should be a Scim.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some of the older ships look better, but IMO, being similar on the left and right side killed some of those ships. Though it worked for the Broadsword.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>ON button? How do you kno... oh, of course. I suppose you've got one too
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't everyone?
Well, other than Microsof of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>You finally get it Q.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Or rather, you get it
. I only agreed with you when you said what I said.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Thou art an unholly being. Be gone!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never! The Excal is ugly!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Some of the older ships look better, but IMO, being similar on the left and right side killed some of those ships. Though it worked for the Broadsword.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmm, well, in real life, most ships are symmetrical
.

Um, we'd better start thinking about wrapping this discussion up. Otherwise, it might end up continuing like all our discussions - indefinitely
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Earthworm

Spaceman
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quarto:
Hmm, well, in real life, most ships are symmetrical
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uh, so?
These days fighters prety much have to be symetrical. Not in the future though. The WC3 Strakha looked better than the symetrical WC2 Strakha IMO. Not to mention that all those pointy parts from WC3 and on were more fitting for the Kilrathi fighters.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR>Um, we'd better start thinking about wrapping this discussion up. Otherwise, it might end up continuing like all our discussions - indefinitely
.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, no, dear God NO!

Perhaps a nice topic drift could handle the job?
Got any ideas?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top