Split: ICS revisited

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:22 pm

As a canon source you do not get to toss it outright. Only the segments directly contradicted or by extension contradicted.
Only applies to contradiction in highest layer. If a lower layer is proven OUTRIGHT LYING (that is, not just giving slightly distorted version) then it should be thrown out completely. At least we need consistency approach: if figures we CAN verify appear to be wrong, then those we cannot must be wrong by the same margin. I got a 4 orders (10000 times) erroro in ICS claims.

Also WHY consider ICS high? It's a children picture book. Not unlike those cornflake boxes on which you can see Jabba transform into Maul and so.The Order is actually like this:

Movies
Scripts
Novellisations
Radio dramas
Info canonized by telling

Official novels
Game pre-infos
Fact books
ICS, gamestats, model descriptions, flakes


The former is "G" the latter is "C". Lukas only accepts "G" as canon, Book group also "C".

So your opinion is formed on incomplete information. Reading the EU makes it very clear just how large the SW Galaxy is.
Uh-hu. Especially give the map in "Vector Prime". And jaina's statements that fighter DO attack capships on their own. ICS contradicts the bulk of thenovels as well.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:35 pm

Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.
Which doesn't make sense to me (probably because I haven't read that part of the ICS, or probably because I'm not an scientific expert... you decide :)... ).

I mean, how can a supposedly Multi-Teraton shield be effected by such a low wattage value?
It is supposed to shield against Multi-Teratons of what?
Asteroids?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:15 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.
Which doesn't make sense to me (probably because I haven't read that part of the ICS, or probably because I'm not an scientific expert... you decide :)... ).

I mean, how can a supposedly Multi-Teraton shield be effected by such a low wattage value?
It is supposed to shield against Multi-Teratons of what?
Asteroids?
Because he's talking what a draining rate in watts?

That said, I think I adressed this here, and I'm only waiting for Alyeska to hear his take on this.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:19 pm

SailorSaturn13 wrote:
As a canon source you do not get to toss it outright. Only the segments directly contradicted or by extension contradicted.
Only applies to contradiction in highest layer. If a lower layer is proven OUTRIGHT LYING (that is, not just giving slightly distorted version) then it should be thrown out completely. At least we need consistency approach: if figures we CAN verify appear to be wrong, then those we cannot must be wrong by the same margin. I got a 4 orders (10000 times) erroro in ICS claims.
I agree. It's quite "funny" that all firepower figures we can actually check manage to be wrong by many orders of magnitude, and yet, we're supposed to believe that all those we can't verify are perfectly correct, while all of them are intertwined because of balanced proportional ratios, that is, a roughly equal ballpark for weapons of the same caliber.
Also WHY consider ICS high? It's a children picture book. Not unlike those cornflake boxes on which you can see Jabba transform into Maul and so.The Order is actually like this:

Movies
Scripts
Novellisations
Radio dramas
Info canonized by telling

Official novels
Game pre-infos
Fact books
ICS, gamestats, model descriptions, flakes

The former is "G" the latter is "C". Lukas only accepts "G" as canon, Book group also "C".
Where is that hierachy from?

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Who is like God arbour » Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:44 pm

Alyeska wrote:
Who is like God arbour wrote:I have never read ICS or EU. I know from it only, what I have read here or on SDN.

I have no problem, to accept it as canon. But, as all canon, it must not contradict the higher ranking movies or change the whole tenet and vibes of Star Wars.

And the most from what I have read, is not only contradicted by sources of the same rank, but - and that is really deciding - by the movies (and the observations and conclusions from them) too.

Then, it may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

If you have a book, in which is described a scene, which violates higher ranking canon - and you can't interpret it otherwise and make it compatible with the higher canon - you have to come to the conclusion, that this scene is invalid. If the book makes no sense anymore with one or several invalid scenes, you have come to the conclusion, that the whole book violates higher ranking canon. It has never happened in Star Wars. (You could define it as alternate universe, but even an alternate universe ought to be geared to the original in some extent. Otherwise it wouldn't be an alternate- but new universe.)

The book may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

You can have your fun, reading it, but you can't use it to argue for Star Wars.
So your opinion is formed on incomplete information. Reading the EU makes it very clear just how large the SW Galaxy is. Sheer force of numbers means that SW ships of inferior firepower to Federation ships are still going to win. When your outnumbered 416-1 and your enemy has a significant speed advantage, your not going to win.
I think, the EU is contradicted by higher ranking canon concerning the size of the Star Wars Galaxy, as far as it claims, that the Star Wars Galaxy is up to 120.000 light years in diameter.

The novel of "A New Hope" states, that the Star Wars Galaxy is only a modest-sized Galaxy. Maybe we can't determine the size of the Star Wars Galaxy exactly by this term, but with 120.000 light years in diameter, it would be one of the largest known Galaxies at all. The most galaxies are smaller then 20.000 light years in diameter. It definitely wouldn't be a modest-sized galaxy.

In TESB Admiral Ozzel said, ...
    • PIETT: I think we've got something, sir. The report is only a fragment from a probe droid in the Hoth system, but it's the best lead we've had.
      OZZEL: (irritated) We have thousands of probe droids searching the galaxy. I want proof, not leads!
... that thousands of probe droids are searching the galaxy. Not millions, not billions and a fortiori not several billions, which would be necessary to search through the whole galaxy, if it would be as big as the EU claims. (It would be believable, if he would have said "reams of probe droids" or something similar vague, but with thousands, he has given an order of magnitude. And I have problems to imagine, that he would say thousands if he really would mean several billions. The difference in the orders of magnitudes is too obviously.)



Also, in my opinion, the EU is contradicted by higher ranking canon concerning the size of the Fleet. If the Empire would have over 20.000 ISD's (and that would only be a small part of the Imperial Fleet, which would consist of other ship classes too), why were there neither at Hoth nor at Endor more ships?

As far as I have understood it, the Empire wanted to end the rebellion. But because the Imperial Fleet, both at Hoth and at Endor, was so small, the rebels at Hoth escaped, respectivly could have escaped at Endor. The few ships of the Imperial Fleet couldn't have prevented this.

But if the Imperial Fleet would be as big as the EU claims, why wouldn't there be more ships assigned? If they would have only 1% of the ISD Fleet assigned to Hoth or Endor, there would have been 200 ISDs.

I see no convincing reason, why the Imperial Fleet should be that big, but we have seen in the movies at deciding battles only a few ships.

Nobody, who has seen only the movies could believe, that the Imperial Fleet would be that big. Fact is, that some books of the EU are describing a universum, which is for someone, who has only seen the movies, not recognisable. For them, it is another world.

If the EU has not provided a very reasonable and convincing reason for this contradiction, it is contradicted by the movies and their novels. And even if it has provided such a very reasonable and convincing reason, some books of the EU would have changed the whole tenet and vibes of Star Wars.

That's the whole problem with EU and ICS. George Lucas should have more attended to the continuity of Star Wars instead of making money. Then there wouldn't be so many discontinuities and contradictions.
Last edited by Who is like God arbour on Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:18 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:24 am

That said, I think I adressed this here, and I'm only waiting for Alyeska to hear his take on this.
I've read you post, and it is quite clearly written.
But it still doesn't answer my question, which is:
Why should we believe that Multi-teraton's worth of shielding should have such low drainage capacity?

If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 GT) of energy, do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.

That's why it seems so unbelievable to me.
Last edited by Praeothmin on Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:30 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
That said, I think I adressed this here, and I'm only waiting for Alyeska to hear his take on this.
I've read you post, and it is quite clearly written.
But it still doesn't answer my question, which is:
Why should we believe that Multi-teraton's worth of shielding should have such low drainage capacity?

If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 TT) of energy, do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.

That's why it seems so unbelievable to me.
Because the energy buffer only manages to transfer x amounts of energy per second to the neutrino radiators.
I'm not saying the figures are right, but that the idea, if applied to lower yields, is worth the try.
However, I think this system would feel less exotic and even non sensical if it applied to super conductive armor, instead of some vague concept about a cloud-like shield which principle has more to do with inconsistencies than real logic.

Now, I have no problem with the idea that the draining rate could only be a percentage of the maximum buffer's capacity.
10% of the buffer can be radiated per second for example. Or 20% at best. More would be too much imho.

That's why focused nukes would be the pain of Star Wars in such a system. You still need to fill the buffer, bu the speed at which a nukes radiates its energy makes those "per second" figures less impressive when you look how fast energy is released.

Saxton says on his pages that energy is stocked first, only to be radiated later on (which can be microseconds like seconds or minutes).
Which means that if you can fill the buffer in one shot, you won't even have to bother with the draining system, since you could overload the buffer even before the draining system opens the valves.

However, if the draining system works simultaneously with the buffer's absorption - which is not what Saxton alludes to on his site - then you'd have to both saturate the "flusher" and the buffer, which means more energy.

This, of course, doesn't explain why a barrage of megaton/kiloton missiles barely reaching above a couple of hundreds of low megatons total, can kick a teraton shield on a given spot because you saturated a zone. It can't work. The numbers are simply too high. If such weapons could defeat the shield, said shield should be rated in the hundreds of megatons at best, eventually one gigaton for the most impressive ships able to withstand the assault of many bombers armed up to the teeth.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:43 pm

This, of course, doesn't explain why a barrage of megaton/kiloton missiles barely reaching above a couple of hundreds of low megatons total, can kick a teraton shield on a given spot because you saturated a zone. It can't work. The numbers are simply too high. If such weapons could defeat the shield, said shield should be rated in the hundreds of megatons at best, eventually one gigaton for the most impressive ships able to withstand the assault of many bombers armed up to the teeth.
Which is exactly what I'm saying:
Why should we believe that Multi-teraton's worth of shielding should have such low drainage capacity?

If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 TT) of energy, do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.
You see, we both have trouble believing that such powerful shields, even if the draining system isn't instantaneous, would be overloadable with so little power if they were truly Multi-Teraton.

So my question remains unanswered... :)

User avatar
SailorSaturn13
Bridge Officer
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:45 am

Post by SailorSaturn13 » Sun Mar 04, 2007 6:45 pm

Where is that hierachy from?
oops. I meant "should be" . But to facts the first 4 positions were established by Sansweet. fifth is logical. the "C" hierarchy comes from closeness to "G" materials. Novels ".happened", so what stands there is highest "C". ICS is OPINION whether from Saxton or an SW cartoonist irrelevant

watchdog
Jedi Knight
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 12:26 am
Location: Not at home

Post by watchdog » Mon Mar 05, 2007 2:06 am

All these numbers and figures make my head hurt, I prefer pretty pictures myself;
Image
I still have not found a copy to post, but one of the x-wing comics featuring this same tactic used against an interdictor had one of the guys on the interdictor saying that the first strike (the leading torpedos) would unbalance the shields long enough for the secondary torps to penetrate. in that comic (phantom affair) the gravity well generators were knocked out and the shields could barely be kept up.

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:44 am

If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 TT) of energy, do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.
Actually 20,000 MT is 20 GT, 20,000,000 MT is 20 TT, so a .001% dissipation rate is even more pathetic.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Mon Mar 05, 2007 3:32 pm

AnonymousRedShirtEnsign wrote:
If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 TT) of energy, do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.
Actually 20,000 MT is 20 GT, 20,000,000 MT is 20 TT, so a .001% dissipation rate is even more pathetic.
Sounds like nearly every ICS justification I've heard; "Good for X Teratons, never use at above 0.Y KT" :p

User avatar
AnonymousRedShirtEnsign
Jedi Knight
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:05 pm
Location: Six feet under the surface of some alien world

Post by AnonymousRedShirtEnsign » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:22 pm

I just looked through the Saxton authored ICS books and found no mention of Alyeska's loophole. My guess is that Saxton talked about it, but it never made it to the ICS, and is therefore just speculation about the mechanism behind SW shields and utterly worthless to the versus debate. The shield figures are given in watts not joules and there is no mention of dissipation rates. I find it interesting that Saxton gives the TF Core ship shields that are an order of magnitue stronger than the Acclamator shields, since that would imply that the entirety of the droid control ship would have even more powerful shields and this would give the CIS a considerable advantage.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:41 pm

Actually 20,000 MT is 20 GT, 20,000,000 MT is 20 TT, so a .001% dissipation rate is even more pathetic.
That is exactly what I wrote, look:
If, for example, your shields had the capacity to sustain 20 000 MT (20 GT) of energy,do you really believe it's drainage capacity would be as low as, say, 200 MT of wattage?
That's only 1% of your total shielding output.
That's really not an impressive dissipation capacity.
See?

(Please ignore the edit message at the bottom of the post... :) )

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:00 pm

Praeothmin wrote:So my question remains unanswered... :)
For all who care about this sub theory, it's possible that destroying the valve, that is, overloading it, causes a small sudden chain reaction and makes the rest of the whole shield system go poop, even if in theory the buffer could have absorbed more energy before saturation.

Because if I get it correctly, the circuit is as such:

Absorber >> buffer >> neutrino convertor >> radiator.

>> being power conduits.

Once the radiator (the exit valve) or the convertor are out, the buffer will keep filling up, reaching saturation point, overloading and exploding.

But to make sense from the wattage numbers, the idea is that overloading the radiator or the convertor themselves causes an explosion that damages the rest of the system.

After all, saturating a possibly efficient but fragile system, especially around the neutrino convertor or the radiator, with many petawatts of power, is not a mere feature (even if here, petawatts is way below Saxton's claims, but we'll get on that later on).

That would be why destroying the part of the system that has a poor draining rate would be a weakness to the whole system in question.

However, before you react, I have to say that this is absurd, for two reasons.

First, why would the radiator ever overload if there was an energy buffer? All the energy the radiator couldn't dissipate per second would be kept in the buffer, until all energy is flushed out, or reaches saturation threshold.

Secondly, it's a kind of bizarrre system that they have power conduits able to absord megatons of energy, say gigatons, and yet can't transfer the exact same amount on the other end.

So basically, as people have said, if it was about draining rates versus buffers, that would make little sense, since you'd need to claim absolutely ridiculously low draining rates to make sense of the snubfighters event.

As said earlier, if shields in the ICS are just described in systems dissipating watts, if the explanation is only limited to that, it's another attempt at wanking things up, because it establishes a binary situation, where either you match the wattage level, or you don't. And then you can find yourself shooting for the end of times as long as you don't reach near 99% of the dissipation rate (incldues a bit of variance, no system's perfect after all).

As previously established, this does not mesh with the films at all, where shields are drained by packets. Each hit is a loss of X units of shielding, and shields barely recharge in the heat of a battle, unless you start to divert enough power towards them.

And as such, never could have fighters ever hoped getting rid of an ISD's shields, no matter the concentrated fire and wattage. It could be possible if we were talking about radiation rates around very low gigatons per second, and thus much lower for a 1/100 of a second, and thus within the range of explosives releasing most of their high kiloton/megaton level energy within a 1/100 of a second.
But the rates are simply many orders of magnitude too high.

As a consequence, it either kindly forces the ICS believers to wank up torpedoe yields, or claim that their explosives release most of their energy within a millionth or a billionth of a second.

In either way, lower elements have to follow in the path of wank to match the initial high figures.





A final possibility could be that there are series of radiating channels, and each hit destroys one of those channels. So in the end, the shields loose efficiency because they're progressively damaged, and as such, you can't simply reroute power. You actually have to repair the shields. Period.

Which, again, doesn't fit with TPM's events, where the Naboo yatch got her shields rejuiced as R2 manually rerouted power to them.

That said, on the ICS point, there were, AFAIK, no numbers ever given regarding the shields of that yatch. Mostly because Saxton wasn't involved in that book.
If he had, how could they have claimed their usual wank, when droids were directly hit and hardly exploded in any nuclear fashion?
You see them claim megaton level shielding for fighters since AOTC, IIRC.
With all that flak and droids exploding mere feet away from R2, this would mean that this astrodroid had super uber armour, able to withstand either kilotons, megatons or gigatons of power, depending on the asinine claim of the day.
Same for the naked hull of the ship, while the shields were down.
That yatch took what? a very few direct hits and most of the damage due to a small dozen of nearby explosions? That's just a few times more than the shields of N-1s, shot down by the same cannons towards the end of the film.
They would be definitely stuck. So of course, between TPM and AOTC, fighters and royal Naboo ships got upgraded as a whole, from shields going down after, at best, a few low gigajoules shots, to shields able to withstand many petajoules.




The "Absorber >> buffer >> neutrino convertor >> radiator" system is not a bad idea as long as you talk about armour being hit, and not some absurd vampiric cloud presented as a shield theory.
However, no matter the system we're talking about, energy shield or armour, the other main problem lies in the wattage figures which are associated.









Now, as for the figures themselves and the recent ICS compilation, it seems that it's nothing more than a pure marketing package with a very few bonuses, with all the already existing info rehashed into this new all-in-one book.

Looking at SDN's thread regarding the new compilation, since several people have read them...

They left the TIE's solar panels.
There's lots of info that is reinterpretated from older sources, which may even predate WEG's stuff.
There's still those bizarre 60 & 60 TLS and ion cannon numbers, with no refinement on their caliber.

Post Reply