Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Assuming you mean Hellcat, you can't honestly believe that the Hellcats in WC1 *aren't* armed with the same low-damage weaponry taht the rest of the fighters of that era have. "Oh, yeah, we have neutron guns capable of blowing up any capship in one hit... but we only put them on our training craft." (Besides -- we *know* that WC1-era Hellcats (or whatever they are) mount a pair of lasers as their gun armament...)
But still, that's like a 10-fold increase in damage since the start of Wing-Commander... that's insane. We're not talking about just a 2 fold or 3 fold increase, which is a lot by the way.
Yes... but the engine rotates and rescales the images to make it appear as though the ships are turning. If your computer is too fast, you'll miss the effect. Hence, I reccomend moslo.
Like in WC3? Are you sure? WCSNES was not like that at one bit...
Yes, you only know this because CFF just told it to you five posts ago. The scene at the end of WC1 is the Tiger's Claw bombarding a planet with its anti-matter guns -- it has nothing to do with lasers.
Hey, I'm allowed to use any information gathered in my arguments.
I can find no evidence that flak cannons are laser beams -- just that it involves energy (something that's inherent in any definition of explosion...).
But they are listed as unstable beams of
energy. And energy follows certain laws of phsyics. Flak-cannons do not seem to follow them.
If it was a plasma-charge it might...
And a single B-1 can do today what it took hundreds of B-17s to do in World War II. World War II must never have happened! Shields and weapons, like any technology, advanced throughout the war -- the *ratios*, remained the same.
Yes, but a B-1B is MUCH larger than a B-17, and has much more internal bomb-area. It also has better engines.
To the best of my knowledge, the Orbiter doesn't carry munitions... it carries scientific experiments which must be kept in a sterile environment. And it *does* mount a payload on its wings -- that's where it keeps its rocket boosters during takeoff. There's no space to mount anything else there.
But I was trying to win the argument by saying "Hey, that's a spaceship that carries it's stuff internally, therefore saying that all WC fighters can carry weapons internally". My apologies...
Either way, it does seem more logical to carry weapons internally...
Yup, 200,461 tonnes is correct -- although the movie also gives a length of "3 or 4 kilometers" for the Snakeir. The Confed Handbook must refer to a different class of ship...
Actually it's not. The 3-4 kilometer long ship was an entirely-different class of vessel.
No, they're not. The Diligent uses the same set of graphics with a blue pod drawn over the Drayman's brown rectangle.
Then they are colored differently at the pods, or use different shading, because the Diligent's pods look fatter.
Oh, well, if it's just two Confed ships, that proves your point. Wait, that's two out of how many? *FIVE*. 40% of Confed capital ships in Wing 1 use the 'pod system'. (And that's not even accurate -- two of the Venture's engines are slung underwing in pods... so that's 3/5...).
Yes, but the Drayman, and Diligent are transports, and not combat-ships.
The Venture is a combat-ship, but it's not technically a capship.
So technically, there are no Confed Capships that are equipped with podded-engines.
I could argue that this doesn't mean anything -- because it doesn't... but that's not necessary, since it's not even true. The Bhantkara-class' engines are in four triangle-shaped pods.
Yeah, but they're more like fins, and they're so thick it doesn't really matter...
Physicsally speaking, G-forces on an object in a vacuum are only a tiny fraction of those experienced on Earth. It's their theoretical affect on artificial gravity (and therefore the people *inside* a Wing Commander space ship and not its engine-pods) that's a problem. Either way, Wing Commander makes use of two sci-fi loophole devices: "acceleration absorbers" and "inertial dampeners". Both are present in Wing 1.
Actually it's simply accelerational-loads...
1.) Engines accelerate
2.) Ship want's to stay still
3.) Engines pull ship anyway
4.) Pylons are being "pulled" both ways... they are attached to the ship... and the engine, the engine's pulling them forward, and the ship isn't responding so quickly...
5.) Thin pylons of the same substance aren't as sturdy as thick ones...
Look at the Fralthra... or the Ralari... those things look like they'd snap off with one bad hit...
And the real worrying factor is an
engine-failure...
The ship yaws into the direction of the dead engine, and the further out the engine is on the frame from the center, the greater the yaw.
Putting the engines as close to the middle is a smarter idea. Putting them as far out as you can go is Stoopid.
Also, it's easier to take out an engine mounted on a pod, compared to one that was buried deep inside the ship's frame... look at the Hakaga-Design... engines run like 30 meters before reaching the outside.
Wait, this is all meaningless. A quick look at the WC1 script reveals that the fuel in question is for *fighters*. If you lose the mission, Halcyon reveals that the 'Claw will have to retreat since they won't be able to defend the colonies without the fuel. (Still, refueling capital ships has occured in every iteration of the series -- for instance, the Tiger's Claw steals fuel from a CommoCon in the movie... or how you pay 50 credits to refuel your fighter each time you land in Privateer...)
To first set of comments: Yeah, but why can't you just shift some of the fuel from the Tiger's Claw's tanks into the flight-deck's supply? Either way, they both use hydrogen for fuel... and how much fuel's a couple dozen fighter's gonna burn up?
To the second thing: You pay fifty credits to refuel in privateer because your ship runs on a slight-deficit, or burns up exactly as much fuel as it takes in... either way, you gotta shut the scoops off sometimes and dash, and other times you gotta jump... both of which we know drains fuel... and without a surplus, the ship will never regain it's supply of hydrogen back...
All of this assumes an evolution of the services that you've *assumed*, though. Although it's fairly reasonable to believe that the Air Force would include any sort of future 'space force', it's *not* reasonable to believe that the water Navy would automatically become a space navy. There's no direct line of evolution between an aircraft carrier and a space carrier.
Not direct, but it's pretty damn close...
1.) Aircraft
2.) Runway
3.) Mobile Runway (Aircraft-Carrier)
4.) Space-ships
5.) Space-stations
6.) Mobile Space-Stations (Space-Carrier...)
Actually there's a more complex explanation, but I'm too lazy to write it all down.
-Concordia
