| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2023 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
 |
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | The argument you seem intent on making is that the repulsorlifts achieve escape velocities, not the sublight engines. |
No. Escape velocity is the speed needed to escape the pull of the Earth’s gravity / achieve orbit (whichever you’re trying to do). In a setting with repulsorlifts, where gravity is effectively countered, there is no need for an escape velocity greater than >0. So long as you have sufficient power to run your repulsorlifts, you can take a month or more to leisurely drift your way into orbit / outer space if you prefer. Speed or velocity is only pertinent to low-tech civilizations that don’t have repulsorlifts.
| Quote: | | It is also my understanding that at such speeds, maneuvering isn't really possible. Basically the maneuverability is sacrificed for speed. |
I’m aware of nothing in the RAW that supports this. There is no dead zone between Atmosphere and Space where you can’t maneuver. You simply transition from one to the other.
| Quote: | | Is WEG RAW a perfect system? No, but i've yet to see anyone do better. |
I’m not trying to change the RAW. I’m trying to come up with a solid fluff / technobabble explanation that explains the RAW’s contradictions in a way that doesn’t require a change.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2023 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I’m not trying to change the RAW. I’m trying to come up with a solid fluff / technobabble explanation that explains the RAW’s contradictions in a way that doesn’t require a change. |
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | In a setting with repulsorlifts, where gravity is effectively countered, there is no need for an escape velocity greater than >0. So long as you have sufficient power to run your repulsorlifts, you can take a month or more to leisurely drift your way into orbit / outer space if you prefer. |
In RAW, all repulsorlift vehicles have flight ceilings, so it would seem they cannot take their time to achieve orbit. It is a correct observation of RAW that the repulsorlift engines of spaceships with sublight drives don't have flight ceilings, but like I have been stating, WEG is explicit that spaceships use sublight drives in atmospheres from surface take-off to space, so there would be no need to bother being explicit that sublight drives are the reason why their repulsorlifts don't have flight ceilings.
I'd love a good fluff/technobabble explanation for why repulsorlift vehicles have specific flight ceilings. If gravity is effectively being countered, then why can Jabba's skiffs only go 50m above the surface when a swoop can go 350m high? It would not be an pilot safety/air pressurization consideration, so a skiff pilot could stay conscious and survive going 350m high. And these flight ceilings are above a surface, not above a planetary constant mean sea level, but some repulsorlifts can work over water while others apparently can't. It really doesn't seem make much sense from a physics perspective.
The only thing I can figure is that repulsorlift engines somehow interact with the mass underneath to achieve the effect of countering gravity, so different engines have different specifications as to the state of matter and distance from it for operation.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 1:18 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I'd love a good fluff/technobabble explanation for why repulsorlift vehicles have specific flight ceilings. If gravity is effectively being countered, then why can Jabba's skiffs only go 50m above the surface when a swoop can go 350m high? It would not be an pilot safety/air pressurization consideration, so a skiff pilot could stay conscious and survive going 350m high. And these flight ceilings are above a surface, not above a planetary constant mean sea level, but some repulsorlifts can work over water while others apparently can't. It really doesn't seem make much sense from a physics perspective. |
IMO, the most likely answer is that WEG's altitude numbers are arbitrary, and generated without real consideration for the implications we as fans might draw later. Per the canon description, repulsorlifts should counter gravity all the way out to high orbit or beyond (IIRC, per the ANH novelization, it was a radius of six planetary diameters from an Earth-type planet like Tatooine or Alderaan). For both that description and WEG's numbers to be true, the deficiency must lie in systems other than the repulsorlifts, be it thrusters or environmental protection. One theory I recall is that the booster engines on airspeeders and cloud cars were airbreathers, in that they required the ingestion of atmospheric gases to feed through the fusion reaction systems to generate thrust. Above a certain altitude (on most planets, at least), the atmosphere is too thin to provide enough matter to sustain a reaction. Ultimately, though, that's just technobabble trying to retcon WEG's numbers.
I'm strongly tempted to throw out hard numbers for maximum altitude entirely, and replace them with descriptors, like Low / Middle / Upper Atmosphere and Low Orbit. That keeps things general for planets that have conditions that might cause a speeder's maximum altitude to vary from the WEG number, but still provides enough for the GM to form a narrative.
| Quote: | | The only thing I can figure is that repulsorlift engines somehow interact with the mass underneath to achieve the effect of countering gravity, so different engines have different specifications as to the state of matter and distance from it for operation. |
My theory (discussed here) is that the difference is in the mode of propulsion, with some needing a ventral field projector that “grabs” the ground underneath, while others use a directional impellor (effectively a tractor beam focused on the ship itself) that doesn't require interaction with the ground. Airspeeders and starships are also equipped with the latter type.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, since this conversation has moved well beyond the Victory Carrier, might I suggest porting any further discussion to either the Orbital Combat or Orbital Flight & Combat Rules topics.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 4:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Also, since this conversation has moved well beyond the Victory Carrier, might I suggest porting any further discussion to either the Orbital Combat or Orbital Flight & Combat Rules topics. |
This discussion would still be a tangent in those topics too.
| Quote: | | IMO, the most likely answer is that WEG's altitude numbers are arbitrary, and generated without real consideration for the implications we as fans might draw later. |
Arbitrary like I said the pure fluff sublight benchmarks written by a non-scientific game author was? We don't actually have any filmic evidence about how quickly it takes a spaceship to travel from from a planet to a moon or another planet it its system. Even novels use "cutscene" in the narrative and rarely mention details like this. And even when they do, star systems vary greatly so it would be hard to extrapolate any sensible "benchmarks" out of it.
I don't think the altitudes in vehicle stats are all completely arbitrary, because we see a lot of these vehicles operate in the films. We see the skiff sail over sand dunes and hover above the Sarlacc Pit. 50m doesn't come completely out of nowhere. We see landspeeders, speeder bikes, and snow speeders in action. Swoop capabilities were described in a Daley novel.
And even if the flight ceilings were arbitrary, the base fact that repulsorlift vehicles do have flight ceilings means that they are not intended to ever have the ability to slowly float to orbit. Nothing in the films suggests that. From my immersion in the setting, that idea feels counterintuitive.
| Quote: | | Per the canon description, repulsorlifts should counter gravity all the way out to high orbit or beyond |
Canon is not written by physicists. If gravity is effectively being countered and there is nothing else at play, then yes there should be no flight ceilings. So we agree there must be something else at play.
| Quote: | | (IIRC, per the ANH novelization, it was a radius of six planetary diameters from an Earth-type planet like Tatooine or Alderaan) |
The ANH novel is not a reliable source for information about the SWU if the info was not repeated elsewhere. In 1976, Lucas gave a sci-fi author the Star Wars screenplay and the author fluffed it up with description without having even seen the finished film (with vehicle effects shots).
The novelization describes Theepio having the ability to self-repair, so after Luke put Threepio's arm back in place, Threepio's self-repair system reconnected all the cut wires. This has never really entered the canon. I added it to my droid repair rules because I thought it was cool, and it doesn't contradict anything that happens in the films or my general sense of Star Wars verisimilitude. There is absolutely nothing in the films that even hints of repulsorlifts working six diameters out from a planet, and there's no reason they would ever need to. I don't even feel Verpine asteroid hoppers could work without being inside a busy asteroid field.
| Quote: | | For both that description and WEG's numbers to be true... |
They both don't have to be true. Sometimes things contradict each other and you just throw something out. The 1e SW sourcebook had a sentence that made it sound like starships accelerate to the speed of light before entering hyperspace, but then that was removed from 2e book because it was incorrect. Sometimes things are officially retconned, which shows that canon isn't perfect or 100% stable. Other times we are left with the contradictions and have to cast out non-sensical things ourselves.
| Quote: | | ...the deficiency must lie in systems other than the repulsorlifts, be it thrusters or environmental protection. |
Not necessarily. I suggested something that is inherent in the way repulsorlift tech itself works...
| Quote: | | Quote: | | The only thing I can figure is that repulsorlift engines somehow interact with the mass underneath to achieve the effect of countering gravity, so different engines have different specifications as to the state of matter and distance from it for operation. |
My theory (discussed here) is that the difference is in the mode of propulsion, with some needing a ventral field projector that “grabs” the ground underneath, while others use a directional impellor (effectively a tractor beam focused on the ship itself) that doesn't require interaction with the ground. Airspeeders and starships are also equipped with the latter type. |
Yes. I was not a fan of your tractor energy field/Flintstone vehicle/stream roller description of near-ground speeder propulsion. And when I just now read a tractor beam focused on itself, I immediately thought of the this (which would not work). That smacks of your projective artificial gravity idea (the red lines in this image), which I also wasn't a fan of. Star Wars has miraculous physics-suppressing technology, such as repulsorlifts, artificial gravity/tractor tech, and inertial compensation. They exist and we see how they work in the films. IMO some of your explanations add abilities and make them even more miraculous than necessary. But to each their own.
| Quote: | | I'm strongly tempted to throw out hard numbers for maximum altitude entirely, and replace them with descriptors, like Low / Middle / Upper Atmosphere and Low Orbit. That keeps things general for planets that have conditions that might cause a speeder's maximum altitude to vary from the WEG number, but still provides enough for the GM to form a narrative. |
That works.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2023 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | It is also my understanding that at such speeds, maneuvering isn't really possible. Basically the maneuverability is sacrificed for speed. |
I’m aware of nothing in the RAW that supports this. |
sorry for taking so very kriffing long, weird weather the last few days messed me up w/headaches & brainfog...
Movement & All-Out speeds, i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours.
Please take some time to re-think the point you wish to make & try communicating it fresh in a day or two. If it still makes no sense to me i'll just move on.
The Carrier variant VSD is still a great idea overall & one that i am grateful for. Thank you for sharing it!
I wish you all a Happy New Year!
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
 
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 1:49 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Movement & All-Out speeds, i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours. |
Where in the RAW does it state that ships in Atmosphere must travel at All-Out to transition from Atmosphere to Space?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
Where in the RAW does it state that ships in Atmosphere must travel at All-Out to transition from Atmosphere to Space? |
 Congratulations; you lost. Moving the goalposts is the sign of an indefensible position.
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Is WEG RAW a perfect system? No, but i've yet to see anyone do better. |
Well said. This is the main source of so much beef that I have with CRMcNeill. Not that I don't have my own personal biases (WEG 1e); but I prefer not to talk about that. 
 Hey Whill, could you bring in a sarcasm font? It would be appreciated.
_________________
The GM runs a living setting. Players unstick their own s***. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 8:16 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | Congratulations; you lost. Moving the goalposts is the sign of an indefensible position. |
Being snide is only somewhat defensible if you’re right. When you’re wrong, it just makes you look silly. The point being argued is that there is no requirement in the RAW that ships achieve escape velocity to enter space, thus his insistence that there is a window of transition where ships can not maneuver (on account of moving too fast) is baseless. Inquisitor is taking a known part of the RAW and applying it in a fashion that the RAW does not require.
| Quote: | | This is the main source of so much beef that I have with CRMcNeill. |
You’re really starting off the new year in excellent form. I’ll leave you in Whill’s capable hands.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two things from my perspective
1 - Yes, sometimes we want explanations for things - either because we want to understand how things would work in our game and want something in a story, to have game content that explains or supports it.
2 - Our source material - from movies, comics, video games and yes...even our beloved 30+ year old game - IS FILLED WITH INCONSISTENCIES.
George was a story teller first, creating a consistent universe for game mechanic derivation - was not even on his list.
That and - while WEG and it's authors did an amazing job in many areas - grondbreaking in some ...lets just say, that many player over the years have developed their own house rules due to their perceptions of said rules.
Now - while I don't fret on a lot of things - I did bother in my game to reconcile some of my perceived inconsistencies regarding space travel - at least enough to answer basic questions from players.
How this stuff works in Pak's game.
1 - Repulsor lifts...
They negate/push against gravity - somehow. (lets not get hung up here).
Based upon the power used - gives them how much mass they can lift, AND an altitude limit (again, insert technobabble here).
Besides lift of somekind, some units have traction abilities, and can be used for horizontal acceleration in some vehicles.
Again, based on power, design or technobabble.
2 - repulsors and ships
For more lift - either more mass, or higher altitude - needs more power.
Small vehicles and speeders - don't have massive reactors (insert technobabble about power cells or whatever) or larger size repulsor units.
Most ships use repulsors to generate lift - and then their engines to generate forward thrust.
(use repulsors to get off the ground, point nose toward space - turn on engines, fly away from planet... you get the idea).
3 - Ships Atmo Flying
The limit on atmo flight - is wind resistance and hull limitations - as being speedy in an atmo is not a priority for most vessels (that is a TINY portion of their operating environment) it is not a priority in hull design. THIS is the reason in my game why there are limits to atmo speeds (so you don't rip your ship apart).
4 - Ships and Orbit
Most ships in star wars - are not in a traditional "orbit" - where their very high velocity is enough to defeat the downward pull of gravity (yes, science has better terms - these are good enough for here).
In my SW game - they instead - use their repulsorlifts to "fly" that high. They have engines/reactors which produce the massive amounts of power to do so (as opposed to a speeder bike - see #1).
That is why as we see in various source material, if their engines/reactors fail - they can fall from orbit (yes, this makes pak cringe...).
Conclusion
Are there holes in this?
Sure?
Is it good enough to quell the inconsistencies I see in rules/source content?
Yep.
is it good enough so players can ask "how does a team of rebel agents make a star destroyer fall from orbit..".
Why yes, yet it is.
This level of detail - is good enough for my players and I.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:41 pm Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
pakman, thank you for your perspective.
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | It is also my understanding that at such speeds, maneuvering isn't really possible. Basically the maneuverability is sacrificed for speed. |
I’m aware of nothing in the RAW that supports this. |
sorry for taking so very kriffing long, weird weather the last few days messed me up w/headaches & brainfog...
Movement & All-Out speeds, i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours. |
The rules on R&E p.124 say a pilot flying his ship at All-Out speed can't do any other actions such as dodging or firing a weapon. It doesn't actually even say that a copilot can't dodge (but in play I have probably ruled they couldn't since the maneuvers would cost velocity).
Inquisitor1138, your point here also seems to require equating All-Out speed with escape velocity. There is no such relationship in RAW. The movement rules do not speak of escape velocity. You are asserting a false equivalence.
WEG's stat for the Falcon's All-Out speed is 1,050 kmh. Tatooine has gravity nearly identical to Earth, which has an escape velocity of 40,270 kmh. So the Falcon's All-Out speed is about 2.6% of the required escape velocity. The math clearly shows that ships do not have to achieve escape velocity to escape the planet's gravity. Not even close.
Repulsorlift tech is a good explanation for how this is possible. Starships have repulsorlift engines, and as I pointed out above in the thread, spaceship stats do not have atmo flight ceilings (Altitude) because they can go all the way to space. It would make sense that starships have more powerful repulsorlift engines capable of countering gravity all the way to the point when they are no longer needed for a ship to escape the planet's gravity.
If escape velocity is not needed due to repulsorlift tech, then All-Out speed may not even be needed either. CRMcNeill is correct on that point: The bottom line is, WEG does not speak of ships needing to go All-Out speed to leave planets or a restriction on maneuvering while ascending.
I don't understand why this is even important anyway.
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Please take some time to re-think the point you wish to make & try communicating it fresh in a day or two. |
This is unacceptable. You made a claim about RAW, and CRMcNeill challenged that by stating RAW doesn't state that. The onus is on you to find and cite evidence to support your claim. Just like I did for his claim about sublight engines not being used in atmo.
So you please re-think your point when your brain fog is gone and you have access to the rule book. Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Mon Jan 01, 2024 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | Hey Whill, could you bring in a sarcasm font? It would be appreciated. |
Absolutely not. That would mainly be used for the Dark Side.
| jtanzer wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Where in the RAW does it state that ships in Atmosphere must travel at All-Out to transition from Atmosphere to Space? |
Congratulations; you lost. Moving the goalposts is the sign of an indefensible position. |
No jtanzer, you lost. No such thing occurred, and it is a logical fallacy to falsely accuse someone else of committing a logical fallacy. Don't do that.
| jtanzer wrote: | | This is the main source of so much beef that I have with CRMcNeill. |
So you are publicly admitting you have a personal nemesis on these forums. That is unacceptable. jtanzer, why are you so negative and antagonistic? I realize that may be something of a norm on the internet in general, but it is not allowed here. We aspire to higher standards. We don't make personal attacks here.
| jtanzer wrote: | | I appreciate the talking-to. I have the unfortunate habit of getting passionate and not thinking more. I know I failed in my duty to the Jedi Code, and I will spend time meditating on my failure. |
This is now a formal warning. Please re-read and meditate on the forum guidelines linked above. Thank you.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2024 10:35 pm Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| Quote: | | "What we've got here is failure to communicate" |
since this has become a series of misunderstandings built on false assumptions, i'm gonna back it up & try again.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Movement & All-Out speeds, i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours. |
Where in the RAW does it state that ships in Atmosphere must travel at All-Out to transition from Atmosphere to Space? |
That is not what i said.
In my initial attempt to address the issue i had, i wasn't clear enough, in what we discussed here
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | We’ve discussed your decision to upgrade all military ships in in your setting to Space 7; I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do, but I’m not going to rehash that here. Obviously, you can do whatever you want in your own game. I opted with the idea that the Victory I’s Space was deliberately downgraded in trade for improved atmospheric performance (it’s as fast as a Y-Wing in atmospheric flight). The idea is, it uses light missile launchers to provide orbital fire support, but can use its speed to quickly deploy a heavy Walker assault battalion in reaction to ambushes, rapidly evolving skirmishes and the like where a lot of firepower is needed ASAP. |
Fair enough.
But your statement about downgrading Space speed but increasing Atmosphere speed doesn't make sense. The sublight engines that propel the ship through space are the same ones that propel it through atmosphere.
| Expanded Speed Chart wrote: |
Space: 6, Atmosphere: 330; 950 km/h B-wing, CloakShape Ftr, Svelte-cl Imp Shtl, CR90 Corvette, MC80 Cruiser, Rebel Assault Frigate
Space: 7, Atmosphere: 350; 1,000 km/h Corellian Gunship, Y-wings, Z-95 Headhunter, B-wing/E2, Sentinel-cl LS |
I'll read your explanation/clarification tomorrow.
Good night, CRM! |
My issue was -and is- the decision to have Space & Atmosphere speeds mismatched, specifically being miraculously faster in an atmosphere than in space. Disregarding the RAW Speed Cart, which the ships & vehicles *should* conform to, within reason. Without a good explanation that makes sense, my engineer's brain won't accept/allow it.
I have never seen anything in the RAW to justify incongruent stats, which i have always interpreted as errors, not ever being an 'alternative system' they just happened to forget to explain.
To which CRMcNeill responded with
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | But your statement about downgrading Space speed but increasing Atmosphere speed doesn't make sense. The sublight engines that propel the ship through space are the same ones that propel it through atmosphere. |
Per the RAW, starships use repulsorlifts until they reach orbit, at which point they can use their sublight drives. This is supported by the guidelines for traveling to another planet in the same Star system, which would require extremely high velocities not seen in either the existing stats or on screen. Further, not all existing stats have Atmosphere speeds that match with their common Space equivalent. In at least two instances (the Z-95 Headhunter and the I-7 Howlrunner) ships are “faster” in atmosphere than they should be. The Howlrunner, for example has a Space of 9, but has the same Atmosphere as would a TIE Interceptor (Space 11).
In addition, there seems to be a very hard lockout on using sublight drives in atmosphere. In at least two on-screen instances (escape from Cloud City in ESB and escape from Jedha in RO), it would’ve been very useful to simply be able to engage the sublight drives and use their extremely high speeds to escape pursuers / destruction. Instead, they chose to endure a long tail chase or a blind hyperspace jump.
The working theory seems to be that full power sublight drives used in atmosphere would cause catastrophic damage to an inhabited planet, both from shockwaves produced by moving at hypersonic velocities and the waste / thrust ejected by the drive itself. My solution is that a ship’s drive is a dual-mode system that uses a safer, much less powerful drive system while in atmosphere. The atmospheric drive is integrated with the main sublight drive and uses the same thrust nozzles, but having a faster Atmosphere drive cuts into the performance of the Sublight drive, and vice versa.
This helps explain several stat discrepancies, and allows for more granularity in starships, with some ships sacrificing space performance for atmospheric, and others sacrificing atmospheric performance for space. |
Clearly, we have two, very different, diametrically opposed interpretations & rationalizations for these incongruities.
To the best of my knowledge, there are different models of several craft, which clearly explain why they are faster/slower than the other more familiar models.
AFAIK, there is *Only One* ship which has better performance in an atmosphere than in space, but that justifies superior Maneuverability, not speed. I have cited the incongruities/errors, which i point out here.
My take-away from CRMcNeill's comments was perhaps in error, because it seemed to me, he was effectively saying there was nothing in the RAW to restrict either speed or maneuverability in situation discussed, to which i countered with my trying to cite the rules regarding All Out speed. I confused the issue by getting ahead of myself and jumped ahead to my headcanon solution, without explaining how i got there.
I was not equating All-Out speed with Escape Velocity.
RAW does not really address the issue of Escape Velocity. I needed to reconcile the RAW stats, by which not one ship could attain Escape Velocity. I extrapolated spacecraft must therefore exceed the RAW atmospheric speeds to do this but no maneuvering is possible during the extreme acceleration, as they are restricted to either a straight line or parabolic arc.
A bit long-winded, but that was a tangent to the point i was trying to make, which was that the RAW have rules relating specifically to speed & Maneuverability (All-Out speed), where CRMcNeill claimed there wasn't. An odd claim to make, & one he may not have realized he'd made at the time. We're only human.
IF, if CRMcNeill presents a clear explanation of the How and Why *any* ship can be faster in an Atmosphere than it is in Space, i will consider it.
Please, do not, use /cite bits from the RAW, when they do not say anything supporting your initial claim. While you may interpret them as supporting your claim, none of the ones you have cited/quoted, outright state your claim, or support it that i can see.
IF i am misunderstanding what it is you intending to communicate, then please, take a breath & rethink it. Explain it simply so we can avoid confusion.
Do not assume your assumptions are the only explanation. Walk us through your rationale.
jtanzer.
Exploiting a misunderstanding for personal gain, especially cowardly cheap shots, at anyone, for any reason, is not helpful. It is not welcome here.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:26 am Post subject: Re: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive.. |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Movement & All-Out speeds, i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours. |
Where in the RAW does it state that ships in Atmosphere must travel at All-Out to transition from Atmosphere to Space? |
That is not what i said... |
It is what you said, but it isn't everything. As stated in my PM to you which you haven't read yet, I had to edit your post because it violated forum guidelines regarding [redacted by fight club]. What I edited out was you stating you couldn't illegally access All-Out rules due to a technical issue, but "i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours."
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | I extrapolated spacecraft must therefore exceed the RAW atmospheric speeds to do this but no maneuvering is possible during the extreme acceleration, as they are restricted to either a straight line or parabolic arc. |
Thanks for the clarification. So you are saying that you understand that escape velocity far exceeds All-Out speed, so therefore ships escaping from a planet's gravity must have the same limitations that All-Out speeds have.
That is your personal conclusion that the All-Out rules (or any other rules) don't come out and say. There is absolutely no indication in RAW that there are any maneuvering limitations on starships traveling from planets to space.
There is also no indication in RAW that ships even need to obtain escape velocity to leave planets. Spacecraft launched from Earth are required to reach escape velocity because we don't have anti-gravity technology. The miracle of repulsorlift technology would effectively eliminate the requirement to achieve escape velocity. While I disagreed with CRMcNeill that any repulsorlift vehicle should be able to slowly float out of the atmosphere, spaceships actually could because their repulsorlift tech does not have an atmospheric flight ceiling.
The other flaw with your conclusion is that it is impossible for Star Wars ships to even achieve escape velocity in atmospheres in the first place. All-Out speed is the maximum speed. Even A-Wings don't come close. This shows that starships do not need to come even close to escape velocity to escape, because they can't go that fast and yet they still escape to space. And there is nothing that says they even need to go All-Out speed to escape.
A final point is that escape velocity is not an absolute requirement for Earth ships either. It is possible to achieve space without escape velocity, but it would require a lot more fuel so it is impractical (and would be much more dangerous than spaceflight already is now).
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Please, do not, use /cite bits from the RAW, when they do not say anything supporting your initial claim. While you may interpret them as supporting your claim, none of the ones you have cited/quoted, outright state your claim, or support it that i can see. |
Look who's talking. You attempted (but failed) to cite the All-Out rules and said, "i'm pretty sure that it very much supports my claim & counters yours." You give great advice here, but you should also follow it.
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | I confused the issue by getting ahead of myself and jumped ahead to my headcanon solution, without explaining how i got there |
You're not the only one who has done this. We can't do this here. I don't know how many unnecessary arguments and escalations have occurred here because people confuse their house rules for RAW and their head-canon for canon. And even because they aren't clear whether they are talking about their RAW/house rules or canon/head-canon.
I put it in the forum guidelines for everyone. Please don't misrepresent your house rules/head-canon for RAW/canon.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I’m a bit preoccupied with work, so this will be brief. There’s a lot to catch up on in this thread, and it will have to wait until I have enough down time to break out my laptop again. However, I can at least address the main points.1). I do not think any starships travel faster in absolute terms in atmosphere than they do in space.
2). However, when one compares existing stats to the conversion chart in the Ships In Atmosphere section of 2R&E (pg. 129), there are some discrepancies. The Z-95 (Star Wars Sourcebook pg. 15) has a Space of 7, but has the Atmosphere of a ship with Space 9 (according to the above conversion chart). The I-7 Howlrunner (Dark Empire Sourcebook, pg. 110) has a Space of 9, but has the Atmosphere of a ship with Space 12 (again, according to the conversion chart).
Now, it’s possible that these are just errors. For myself, it fits with my larger view of starships in atmosphere (which I will be addressing shortly in a different topic) that some ships will be deliberately capable of greater performance in atmosphere, w/r/t their position on the 2R&E Starships In Atmosphere chart than they do in space. In absolute terms, even the slowest of starships in space will be traveling hundreds or thousands of times faster than even the fastest speeders / starships in atmosphere.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
