Stiletto and Morningstar

[Delance]

The VDU image of the Stilleto doesn't look much like the Morningstar...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

True:

Of course, in all fairness, the VDU image of the Broadsword doesn't look much like the VDU image of the Broadsword, either:

 

[SoulSkorpion]

Of course, in all fairness, the VDU image of the Broadsword doesn't look much like the VDU image of the Broadsword, either:

I d'no. The two Broadsword displays look more like each other than the Stilletto and Morningstar do. All the bits on one display are there on the other, but that's not the case for the first two. Except for the blue stuff.

 

[Moonsword]

Yes, but they aren't different versions of the same basic hull type, either. I think they look similar enough to be designed around similar principals, say, possibly atmospheric flight and a new set of engine types coming on-line.

Similarity in function imposes a certain similarity in form in a lot of cases. Something else to remember is that if we take form as a function of function, canards have precisely no use in space and are therefore extra mass that could go to fuel, weapons, armor, etc. Of course, the same could be said of all the fighters, but this is a little more blatant than wing surface that can be used for other purposes (fuel storage, weapons mountings, electronics).

 

[SoulSkorpion]

Yes, but they aren't different versions of the same basic hull type, either. I think they look similar enough to be designed around similar principals, say, possibly atmospheric flight and a new set of engine types coming on-line.

Similarity in function imposes a certain similarity in form in a lot of cases. Something else to remember is that if we take form as a function of function, canards have precisely no use in space and are therefore extra mass that could go to fuel, weapons, armor, etc. Of course, the same could be said of all the fighters, but this is a little more blatant than wing surface that can be used for other purposes (fuel storage, weapons mountings, electronics).

I like how you discuss similarity of function based purely on what they look like, and overlook the fact that one is a highly advanced, heavy, experimental anti capital ship fighter, and the other is a fast light fighter. Their functions could only be further apart if one was a freighter and the other an iced beverage .

 

[Maj.Striker]

Sure they look similar but it's like comparin a F-25 and a Su-27...there's similarities but it's not the same thing.

 

[Moonsword]

Never mind. Obviously, the idea of analysis from established fact looking for underlying principles is lost on some people.

 

[Wolf Dog]

I like how you discuss similarity of function based purely on what they look like, and overlook the fact that one is a highly advanced, heavy, experimental anti capital ship fighter, and the other is a fast light fighter. Their functions could only be further apart if one was a freighter and the other an iced beverage .

Maybe the Stilletto could have a lot more capability with better systems. It seems to be relegated to a lot of behind the lines patrol action, maybe it is supposed to be a cheap fighter. Surely a Morningstar could also be less well equipped and be considered a lighter combatant, so they need not be so dissimilar. And although the combat functions are different, other functions may be the same if perhaps they were both designed to be capable of atmospheric flight or utilize a new technology with would impose similarities in design. The thrusters could be a case here, as that is one component on the Stilletto that rivals the Morningstar.

 

[Quarto]

Maybe the Stilletto could have a lot more capability with better systems. It seems to be relegated to a lot of behind the lines patrol action, maybe it is supposed to be a cheap fighter. Surely a Morningstar could also be less well equipped and be considered a lighter combatant, so they need not be so dissimilar.

See, and therein lies the difference between a computer and a plane (or, in this case, a space fighter). A computer is a box that you put stuff into. You can have two computers that look identical and have hugely different prices and capabilities. With a plane, it's a different story - first you decide what capabilities you want it to have, and then you build the airframe based on your decisions. The end result is much harder to change - yes, you can suddenly decide to use a different engine, but you'll need to modify the aiframe. It's not unheard of to encounter a loss of speed in a prototype design after changing to a theoretically-better engine - there is a greater interdependency between components and so changing one component requires changes in other components, too. For example, when you upgrade your processor, you don't need to worry about not having enough power, as computers are designed to use the same power adapters. If, on the other hand, you upgrade the engine in one of WC's fighters, you'll find yourself facing a power shortage. So you'll upgrade the power plant... and you might find, for example, that the better power plant is so much bigger that you no longer have enough space for the shield generator.

The upshot of this is that while it might be possible to get a performance boost in a Morningstar by stripping away its armour, guns and missiles, you will not be able to turn the Stiletto from a patrol fighter into a Morningstar-equivalent simply by upgrading its systems. The Stiletto was designed to use those specific components. Had it been designed to use the Morningstar's components, it would have been a Morningstar, and that's that.

(one of the things I loved about Privateer was that it tried, albeit to a limited degree, to simulate the above-described processes; any time you upgraded your shield generator without upgrading the engine, you would find yourself running low on power at the most inconvenient times)