Complete and updated ICS

[GStone]

Here.

First Look: Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections
October 19, 2006

Complete your bookshelf of DK Star Wars masterworks with the hardcover collection of all four Incredible Cross-Sections titles. The "exploded view" guides of the starships and vehicles from Episodes I, II, III and the original trilogy are gathered here into a single volume, offering readers a peek beneath the hoods, canopies, and armored plate of such essential Star Wars vehicles as the Millennium Falcon, the Naboo N-1 starfighter, the Slave I, and the latest clone trooper armored vehicles.

The detailed artwork by Hans Jenssen and Richard Chasemore complements the authoritative text by David West Reynolds, Curtis Saxton and Kerrie Dougherty. This collection is enhanced with brand-new illustrations, including cutaway views of the TIE bomber, Imperial shuttle, and the A-wing and B-wing fighters, along with revised technical information and behind-the-scenes pages. This new edition also features a foreward by Visual Effects Supervisor John Knoll.

Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections is scheduled for release in April 2007.

~~~~~~~

I hope there's more than just 4 additions.

[Jedi Master Spock]

OK... now, if LucasBooks has any sense, they'll fix all the things the fans have pointed out are wrong. This would mean fixing everything from A-Wing length to pitching all of the junk figures Saxton threw in on power generation. Fandom has tested all of these and found them lacking.

In support of this faint hope of a comprehensive overhaul of the much-ridiculed ICS, the editors clearly didn't let Saxton stick in explicit power figures in the ROTS:ICS, and his fans have been in disfavor with Lucas officials as a result of such incidents as the famous "Talifan" Poe v Traviss case*.

Such a dramatic revision would amount to a public admission that Lucas Licensing screwed up in the first place in letting Saxton write for them... and such admissions are rare. Even when EU material has been retconned to the point of total absurdity, LL is interested in re-selling and re-packaging it - not getting rid of it or spending money re-writing it.

So what I expect to see**? "Revised" technical information will include a 19 km length for the Executor, updated figures for the number of clones and droids, and some more "fluffy" specs for stuff that got glossed over in the first editions of the ICS books - at most. LucasBooks has now (since the original publication of the ICS books) been working consistently with actual figures for the clone army that make the "quadrillions" army of the original ICS look ridiculous, and they're sticking to them. I expect that the revised ICS collection will be essentially a reprint with a few pages added here and there, with no other major revisions to the original text.

I think the most key indicator of what happens with this project is going to be the answer to this question:

Who is working on the revised version?

*Whatever your opinion of Poe and Traviss as people, it is - IMO - fairly clear which one came out the winner at SW.com.
**With a stated publication date of April 2007, it's possible concerted fan lobbying may have an impact on the state of the final work.

[Nonamer]

We can certainly hope Saxton's numbers get cut. A lot of SW authors simply won't agree to the hard (and impractical) limits found in the ICS so we may see SW authors petition for a change. It's unclear if any of them are even aware of the situation though. I wouldn't be surprised if everything simple gets copied over verbatim due to a lack of interest on the part of LL ("it's a children's book...").

[Jedi Master Spock]

A little birdie told me Saxton isn't writing for the re-release as of this point in production. Perhaps Lucas Licensing has indeed decided that it has had enough of Star Wars being made a mockery of.

Frankly, I myself have gotten tired of how much Star Wars has gotten made fun of by other SF fans on account of the ICS books. Star Wars doesn't deserve to become the laughingstock of fandom.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I agree, SW doesn't deserve the crap it has taken since ICS2; however this is a chance to save face and sincerely hope that LL takes it. There is no need to piss off a lot of fans with wanked out numbers so we will see one of two things a) no specific firepower, power-plant figures, or acceleration rates or b) all the technical specs will be more reasonable (I'm hoping for the latter).

[GStone]

I'd like to see expansions on just how things work. There are great illustrations, but some of the images make no sense. 'What does this tube do?' 'Why does this thing go this way and not the opposite direction?' I don't think they'd ever do that for space contraints, but I'd still like to find out the whys. I'd assume researching modern mechanics could provide insight, but getting something official would be best.

But, another question I've been wondering. With the numbers that have been given out for ICS #3 and 4, how did they get the green light to be included to begin with?

[Enterprise E]

They probably allowed Saxton a bit of leeway with regards to what he wanted to add in about the technical specifications. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book. Don't forget that Saxton didn't have any yields in the E3ICS, only an absurd weapons range (10 lightminutes for a Venator Turbolaser) that is contradicted by everything movie-verse, EU, Infinities, etc. They may have told Saxton that he couldn't add in weapons yields due to the reaction of SF fans to the E2ICS. I wouldn't be surprised if this final book either removes all weapons references, or places more feasible weapons yields and ranges for such vehicles. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was no entry for the Acclamator's weapons yields, but they had an ISD's turbolasers be about 60 or so megatons (I think that was the Warsie yield, pre-ICS), per HTL cannon. I'd love to see the Rabid Warsies try to reconcile that since technically, the 200 gigaton turbolaser battery yield would still be out there. It would be interesting to see what would happen with that.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I'd like to see expansions on just how things work. There are great illustrations, but some of the images make no sense. 'What does this tube do?' 'Why does this thing go this way and not the opposite direction?' I don't think they'd ever do that for space contraints, but I'd still like to find out the whys. I'd assume researching modern mechanics could provide insight, but getting something official would be best.

But, another question I've been wondering. With the numbers that have been given out for ICS #3 and 4, how did they get the green light to be included to begin with?

IMO, the editor in charge of reviewing the project didn't have a good grasp on what the numbers meant. They brought in Saxton to be their scientific expert on the project in the first place; why should they hire another scientific expert to explain what his figures actually meant?

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was no entry for the Acclamator's weapons yields, but they had an ISD's turbolasers be about 60 or so megatons (I think that was the Warsie yield, pre-ICS), per HTL cannon.

The highest energy yield listed in the TLC is 31,000 terajoules, or 7.4 megatons, for one bolt.

Pre-ICS, however, there was still the occasional BDZ based reference; for example, the TLC are a period piece pre-dating the ICS, but can be currently seen to estimate a total firepower output of 500 exawatts based on Saxton's work in guesstimating what the vague BDZ references meant.

While dramatic, it is worth remembering that within the VS debate, there were those who were already pushing substantially higher figures than analysis of the VFX from the films demonstrated, only several magnitudes lower than ICS figures. These figures, however, lacked credibility outside the SW camp, making them difficult to use in debate until the AOTC:ICS arrived - at which point the AOTC:ICS was to be preferred over such laborious calculations.

As far as prior EU references that could be consulted outside of the ICS... a set of blueprints referenced in the TLC provide for 40 proximity mines with 2 megaton yield each, along with what are described as "10 (20|5|100) megaton space to ground missiles." They are, however, quite old, and though they may well turn out to be the only explicit numeric firepower figures given for an ISD in particular, I would be incredibly surprised to see them show up in the new ICS book.

[sorborus]

As far as prior EU references that could be consulted outside of the ICS... a set of blueprints referenced in the TLC provide for 40 proximity mines with 2 megaton yield each, along with what are described as "10 (20|5|100) megaton space to ground missiles." They are, however, quite old, and though they may well turn out to be the only explicit numeric firepower figures given for an ISD in particular, I would be incredibly surprised to see them show up in the new ICS book.

The blueprints you're refering to are the Mandel blueprints, created in the early '80s by prolific sci-fi graphic artist Geoff Mandel

These were often used as "conservative estimates" by Saxton & his fans, but when I chose to use the figures from them for estimating the amount of Neutronium in an ISD I decided to contact the original artist to query their validity.

He confirmed they were nothing more than fan art - they were not authorised by or created for Lucasfilm.

It seems the confusion came from how Saxton received the original blueprints - in a box of other Star Wars material acknowledging Lucasfilm copyright.

[GStone]

In the flank cross section image, the text box says "CM" and "MM" in the basic armmament and armor plating sections. What do they mean? Centimeters and millimeters?

[Socar]

In the flank cross section image, the text box says "CM" and "MM" in the basic armmament and armor plating sections. What do they mean? Centimeters and millimeters?

If that was the intention, that was a poor choice for the unit symbol. As we all know, a capital M usually means Mega, while a capital C means Coulomb. And Meter should have a lowercase m. Looks like they just goofed on this one. I can't really think of what else they might've meant by CM and MM.

[GStone]

It's 100 coulomb times the number given weapons!! :)

[Nonamer]

We can only hope not only are all quantifiable (and approximated) power figures removed, but also there is a footnote saying that they've intentionally removed problematic claims and that all readers should disregard older claims.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Discussion of the SDN reaction to this thread in particular split to here for convenience.

Nonamer, I think the inclusion of a footnote or "correction" note in the new edition is quite possibly necessary if they do remove or alter the figures. I also think it's fairly unlikely.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Ah, that's going to be funny. Now, you'll have to mention the revised ICS. Like if things weren't already difficult. Let's get more retconning. And we don't even know which way it's going to blow.

19 km long Executor? God. So the ISD would be longer than 1.6 km, no matter if certain scalings at Strek-v-Swars boards, I think by Big Hairy Mountain (sorry, can't rememebr the complete nickname :)) actually found those measurements to be wrong from time to time.

Quadrillons droids. That's a etst run. Will they reduce the number in favor of Traviss, nevermind the attempted lousy retconning, or will they literally keep the thing as it is now, and keep going on?

Will they update the cross section of the N-1 and correct the problem with the astromech's bulk not fitting the slot. Wasn't a scene in Ep 3 which actually showed that R2's top dome could actually lift up from the main section?

Will there still be those CIS cruisers that can vaporize ice moons in one shot?

Who is working on the revised version?

Spot on.

A little birdie told me Saxton isn't writing for the re-release as of this point in production. Perhaps Lucas Licensing has indeed decided that it has had enough of Star Wars being made a mockery of.

Frankly, I myself have gotten tired of how much Star Wars has gotten made fun of by other SF fans on account of the ICS books. Star Wars doesn't deserve to become the laughingstock of fandom.

Well, it's partly due to Lucas' own work as well. Behind the nerdy trash talk around numbers, there's always that prequels vs OT battle going on that undirectly fuels the appeal to ridicule.

Now, should I say that I actually prefer TPM over AOTC and ROTS? :D

They probably allowed Saxton a bit of leeway with regards to what he wanted to add in about the technical specifications. I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea about the numbers that were put in and were shocked with the yields placed in the book. Don't forget that Saxton didn't have any yields in the E3ICS, only an absurd weapons range (10 lightminutes for a Venator Turbolaser) that is contradicted by everything movie-verse, EU, Infinities, etc. They may have told Saxton that he couldn't add in weapons yields due to the reaction of SF fans to the E2ICS. I wouldn't be surprised if this final book either removes all weapons references, or places more feasible weapons yields and ranges for such vehicles. Wouldn't it be interesting if there was no entry for the Acclamator's weapons yields, but they had an ISD's turbolasers be about 60 or so megatons (I think that was the Warsie yield, pre-ICS), per HTL cannon. I'd love to see the considerate fellow fans of Star Wars try to reconcile that since technically, the 200 gigaton turbolaser battery yield would still be out there. It would be interesting to see what would happen with that.

I think the megaton yields were for the midTLs IIRC, and quite lower than that. Then, the low end figure for the bigass TLs was in the single digit gigaton (Wong's estimation). It really sounded impressive back then. Now, it's almost like you're admiting being an eunuch.

Funnily, the megaton claim for TLs would actually fit with the novelisation line about those weapons being able to vaporize a small city (or town, can't remember), a figure of speech often used to actually describe a device's best performance, even if describing a low end by definition.

The highest energy yield listed in the TLC is 31,000 terajoules, or 7.4 megatons, for one bolt.

Pre-ICS, however, there was still the occasional BDZ based reference; for example, the TLC are a period piece pre-dating the ICS, but can be currently seen to estimate a total firepower output of 500 exawatts based on Saxton's work in guesstimating what the vague BDZ references meant.

What's TLC? Is this figure directly related to the EU's terajoules of coherent light or whatever from the X-Wing books?