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 Sep 07, 2020 1:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Yora wrote: | | Depends on the source. |
Indeed. I'm surprised you've never seen Star Wars author Curtis Saxton's Technical Commentaries. There's a lot of good stuff there.
| Yora wrote: | "Welcome to Star Wars, where the numbers are made up and scale doesn't matter."
Since we never really get to see a Star Destroyer and a Calamari Cruiser side by side, any measures are arbitrary. |
In general, it is not the case that all numbers are completely made up and arbitrary. Some of them are errors. One thing to consider, when the information is available, is the scale intended by model makers and special effects artists. Scale does matter to them. They may not be completely successful at achieving the goal, but there always is an intended scale for ships and they may not be that far off.
The Executor is a good example. What started as a statement of power comparison between the Executor and the sum of its escorting Imperial star destroyers which numbered five, got warped through the telephone game into a comparison in ship size. As originally intended, the Executor is 11 times longer than an Imperial star destroyer which was intended to be 1.6km. 1.6km x 11 = 17.6km. I find TESB to reflect this. See the post linked below for more details.
https://rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=168032#168032
The curvature of the Death Star's surface in both ANH and RotJ are the result of the limit in ability to make a large curved practical model. For ANH, they only had to show fighters above it so they did the math at what size would make the Death Star surface appear to be flat at that scale and made the Death Star that size. RotJ likewise has shots of fighters that worked but they could not make a new practical wide angle curved Death Star surface for the one shot of the Executor crashing into it, so we got what we got.
In the EU, DS-1 had a diameter of 120km and DS-2 was 160km. In canon, DS-1 is said to be 160 and DS-2 is just said to be an indefinite amount larger. That still may not resolve the curvature problem but it could help it be less off. I personally find I am not too concerned with that one shot of the Executor crashing, but YMMV.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
Scots Dragon
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 133
Location: A Wee Rainy Island
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2020 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | In the EU, DS-1 had a diameter of 120km and DS-2 was 160km. In canon, DS-1 is said to be 160 and DS-2 is just said to be an indefinite amount larger. That still may not resolve the curvature problem but it could help it be less off. I personally find I am not too concerned with that one shot of the Executor crashing, but YMMV. |
For a while, the numbers were settled on as 160km and 900km.
They're the ones I go by. |
|
