Validity of the ICS

[2046]

He's considered so at SDN, and that opinion has been espoused elsewhere by its members, but that does not appear to represent the prevailing opinion in the fan community.

In what may be his own words from a couple of years ago, "The irony of all this is that I love the number-crunchy stuff. I think it's great fun... it's the zealotry I tend to smirk at."

It's that smirking and lack of equivalent zealotry that raised the ire of some, leading directly to the aforementioned claims of half-wittedness and minimalism.

[Cpl Kendall]

Your posting your blog as proof? You'll pardon me if I take that with a grain of salt.

[2046]

Your posting your blog as proof? You'll pardon me if I take that with a grain of salt.

Proof of what? I said those "may be" his own words, which is entirely accurate given the blog comment purportedly from him. In any case it corresponds well with other statements known to have come from Hidalgo . . . I simply knew where to find that one quite easily.

[Cock_Knocker]

Actually... that problem does come up a lot.

Riiiight. From the same 2 people who want to canonize Sarli's misunderstandings on the Venetor page, and Darkstar's (New Guy) one-hand band trying to erase Saxton's influence on the Wikis on two other pages. Real cross-section (pun intended) of fans there.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Riiiight. From the same 2 people who want to canonize Sarli's misunderstandings on the Venetor page, and Darkstar's (New Guy) one-hand band trying to erase Saxton's influence on the Wikis on two other pages. Real cross-section (pun intended) of fans there.

Two people? SB.com, Wookieepedia, SW.com, TFN, and Wikipedia, each populated with a variety of convincingly active sockpuppets of two people editing... discussing... arguing... retconning... blogging... look at the details, ladies and gentlemen. It's simply not plausible.

It's pretty clear that the ICS books - their technical contents, at least - have a less than stellar reputation among a fairly broad cross section of critical individuals, ranging from SW.com VIPs (Hidalgo, Sarli, Traviss) to Fandalorians (see TFN, I believe) to Trekkies and fans of other SF (see particularly the gallery of individuals at SB who keep making snide comments about the ICS in SW related threads, at volumes just barely low enough to avoid official reprimand).

[Batman]

I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

I find your claimed perception to be mistaken.

[Batman]

I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

I find your claimed perception to be mistaken.

There is evidence from the movies showing that full-power Acclamator MTL blasts AREN'T 200GT? There is evidence the Venators DON'T have the firepower attributed to them ? SHOW ME!

[Jedi Master Spock]

I note a distinct lack of those people showing how the numbers from the ICSes are actually WRONG.

I find your claimed perception to be mistaken.

There is evidence from the movies showing that full-power Acclamator MTL blasts AREN'T 200GT? There is evidence the Venators DON'T have the firepower attributed to them ?

Yes and yes. And those are not the only numbers from the ICS which have, in my judgement, been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be false. This has been shown here, at ST-v-SW.net, and countless other locations online.

SHOW ME!

You may wish to start with articles from websites, or you may wish to start with prior discussion from this forum.

Simply demonstrating from higher canon (see here) that Star Wars ships use fusion power implies that those ships do not have the firepower attributed to them by the ICS.

Were I willing to spend the time, I could link you to a hundred contradictions of the ICS firepower figures.

[Batman]

Higher canon? I can't recall a single mention of fusion in the movies, leave alone them specifying NUCLEAR fusion. I DO recall them doing things that are impossible to achieve with fusion power. Like, you know, blowing Alderaan to smithereens.

[Batman]

I find your claimed perception to be mistaken.

There is evidence from the movies showing that full-power Acclamator MTL blasts AREN'T 200GT? There is evidence the Venators DON'T have the firepower attributed to them ?

Yes and yes. And those are not the only numbers from the ICS which have, in my judgement, been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt to be false. This has been shown here, at ST-v-SW.net, and countless other locations online.

Oh they definitely CLAIM the numbers are wrong. They just completely fail to show to do so.

SHOW ME!

You may wish to start with articles from websites, or you may wish to start with prior discussion from this forum.

Simply demonstrating from higher canon (see here) that Star Wars ships use fusion power

Which is in no way supported by ANY of the canon,

implies that those ships do not have the firepower attributed to them by the ICS.

despite the fact that the DS DOES, and is, by the same asinine reasoning, ASO powered by fusion,

Were I willing to spend the time, I could link you to a hundred contradictions of the ICS firepower figures.

No you couldn't. You could link me to a hundred places that C
LAIM contradictions. Unsupported ones, as it turns out.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Higher canon? I can't recall a single mention of fusion in the movies, leave alone them specifying NUCLEAR fusion. I DO recall them doing things that are impossible to achieve with fusion power. Like, you know, blowing Alderaan to smithereens.

Talking about nuclear fusion is redundant.

As for blowing Alderaan up, I'd like to hear how a weapon, which apparently is supposed to work on turbolaser (or near turbolaser) principles, destroyed a planet in the way it did.
Why is it so fucking hard for you guys to even acknowledge the simple fact that a planet doesn't double boom, with a significant delay in between, and a change of magnitude between both explosions, when hit once by a so called "pure" DET weapon.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh they definitely CLAIM the numbers are wrong. They just completely fail to show to do so.

You say so.

As a side note, it's particularily incredible to see that nevermind how the ICS's figures are so often cited as facts, it's still so hard to find complete quotes from the ICS, about these very shield abilities and mechanics, hyperspace, weapon mechanics, power and range, acceleration and whatelse figures.

Which is in no way supported by ANY of the canon,...

??
Both novelisations and even EU books have references to fusion based power cores.
Even the kids from TPM knew that, and know that fusion is the leading way of power generation across the whole galaxy, used at different scales.
These kids know that because they also said knowing about the stuffs the space pilots talk about when they stop at Tatooine.

No you couldn't. You could link me to a hundred places that CLAIM contradictions. Unsupported ones, as it turns out.

As a matter of fact, there's still that recent thread where we, again, adress the disparity between the ICS's claims, and the power of shields and weapons seen in AOTC, as far as LAATs and geonosian fighters are concerned.

But from time to time, on this thread, we also talked about the Slave-I's weapons, such as the mid section main laser cannons, the missiles and seismic warheads, which are all overblown in the ICS.

There's the claims about thousands of gs of acceleration, while TESB clearly show that ISDs can't achieve more than hundreds of gs to avoid collision.

We have enough evidence from the films that capital level weapons have certainly not ranges in ten of light minutes, but in fact in a few thousand kilometers at best.

[Cpl Kendall]

I have the AOTC:ICS and will be happy to take requests to post facts from it as long as people agree to keep me out of the wider discussion. I have no intention to be drawn into another debate over the ICS.

[Mike DiCenso]

Actually, if you could, please post the ICS Acclamator and Trade Federation statistics, Kendall. I think it would be quite useful to have them documented either in this thread, or in another seperate technical thread for reference.
-Mike