Whats the better Star Fighter, Colonial Viper Mk2 or X-Wing Fighter? - Page 3

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Whats the better Star Fighter, Colonial Viper Mk2 or X-Wing Fighter? (Page 3 of 3)

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:11:04 AM EDT

[#1]

Let's dance!

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:31:31 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Sorry, Missle boat > Defender. End of story.

Only when it had the boost capability in the Tie Fighter series of games. Being able to route all shields and lasers to engines,and then using existing shields to transfer to lasers for boost power was hilarious. I think it topped out around 360 something mglt or something ridiculous like that.
For the later Xwing vs Tie Fighter and Xwing alliance they removed that capability and it kind of sucked. The AI was too good at evading missiles to make it as useful. In Tie Fighter the AI seemed a bit stupider.

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:35:24 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2677/4052902120_b419a9514c.jpg

Hells yeah.

I watched that religiously as a child and now cant remember the name, what is it?

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:42:39 AM EDT

[#4]

The f-302 gets my vote!

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:48:42 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
The statement that the top speed of the T-65 is 110 mglt (sublight) is patently ridiculous. The top speed of any vessel in sublight is just short of light speed,
if it has enough fuel to get to that speed. Space is a zero friction environment (notwithstanding flying through the dust clouds that were once planets,
destroyed by Death Stars) so you can get to any speed you want, subject to your fuel reserve limitations.

Every..and I mean EVERY...sci-fi space show or movie also commits the unpardonable sin of having engines lit all the time while in cruise. Bullshit. You cruise
with engines OFF. Engines are only on for acceleration, deceleration, or course adjustments. You won't slow down when you shut down the engines.

Also, nearly every space program or movie has applied aerodynamic handling principles to space battles. Only Space: Above and Beyond even came CLOSE to
getting that right, with fighter maneuvering sequences based on zero gravity, zero atmosphere ballistics rather than aerodynamic principles.

You do NOT bank to turn in space. You orient for Gs to be exerted in the axis you want them to be, but you don't bank turns!

The optimal fighter design for space is a sphere, as compact as possible, with huge attitude jets at all axes. Minimal surface area for a given volume, smallest
possible target. No need to compromise the design for non-existent aerodymamic functionality.

Since BSG is SLIGHTLY more realistic than Star Wars, from a physics perspective, I'd bet on the Viper. There is no cinematic evidence that a T-65 is even in the same
league as the Mark II in terms of maneuvering performance. In eyeball range, I'd bet on the Viper.

CJ

To be fair, Babylon 5 was "quasi newtonian" in that Starfury pilots utilized the tactic of spinning 180 horizontally to fire at badguys pursuing them.

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:54:56 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Though not a fighter, I'll take an Atlantean Puddle jumper. Drones, cloaking field, can be modified to have a hyper drive and the cloak generator can be modified to generate shields for a short period of time.

Of course, if we are talking big ships, I'll take the Andromeda Ascendant. Me likey some Rommie.

If we're talking big ships, I'll lay my money on HIMP Dahak. Enough firepower to destroy an entire fleet by itself, 18 times the diameter of that piddling little death star thingy, and God knows how much of a mass advantage.

Posted: 3/17/2010 7:57:56 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
The statement that the top speed of the T-65 is 110 mglt (sublight) is patently ridiculous. The top speed of any vessel in sublight is just short of light speed,
if it has enough fuel to get to that speed. Space is a zero friction environment (notwithstanding flying through the dust clouds that were once planets,
destroyed by Death Stars) so you can get to any speed you want, subject to your fuel reserve limitations.

Every..and I mean EVERY...sci-fi space show or movie also commits the unpardonable sin of having engines lit all the time while in cruise. Bullshit. You cruise
with engines OFF. Engines are only on for acceleration, deceleration, or course adjustments. You won't slow down when you shut down the engines.

Also, nearly every space program or movie has applied aerodynamic handling principles to space battles. Only Space: Above and Beyond even came CLOSE to
getting that right, with fighter maneuvering sequences based on zero gravity, zero atmosphere ballistics rather than aerodynamic principles.

You do NOT bank to turn in space. You orient for Gs to be exerted in the axis you want them to be, but you don't bank turns!

The optimal fighter design for space is a sphere, as compact as possible, with huge attitude jets at all axes. Minimal surface area for a given volume, smallest
possible target. No need to compromise the design for non-existent aerodymamic functionality.

Since BSG is SLIGHTLY more realistic than Star Wars, from a physics perspective, I'd bet on the Viper. There is no cinematic evidence that a T-65 is even in the same
league as the Mark II in terms of maneuvering performance. In eyeball range, I'd bet on the Viper.

CJ

This is all true but in BSG the Viper can go into and out of atmosphere so it's shape is designed based on the fact that it can fly in air as well as in space.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:01:30 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tie Defender. I flew one of those back in '94-95. It had better shields then all the rebel craft, which went a long way with us pilots. Plus having two separate hard points with the ability to carry a shit ton of concussion missiles or balance with proton torpedoes was nice. Factor in that you could do long bombing runs by dumping all your residual power from shield and blasters to over torque the P-sz9.7 engines and deliver proton bombs at nearly 200! Then throw in the twin ion cannons and quad blasters an you could singlehandedly disable capital ships.

Damn bantha-counters screwed the program. Who cared if they cost 300,000 credits each! So what if it was 5x the cost of a regular tie. Can a regular tie face down a victory class star destroyer and survive while disabling it's sublight engines while the interdictor holds them in place. Only complaint I ever had was the hyperspace engine. We didn't need it. a jump of more than a parsec was cruel and unusual punishment and severely degraded pilot performance. We were always based out of a cruiser or larger anyway. That could have saved a few credits.

I miss the old girl.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/d/d6/Defhanger.jpg

best post ever /end thread

I second this nomination.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:03:01 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

I'm inclined to lean X-Wing. Targeting system better than just a MK-I eyeball, hyperdrive, shields, heavy weapons to include proton torpedoes.

Yep, although I've always preferred the viper.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:04:17 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Tie Defender. I flew one of those back in '94-95. It had better shields then all the rebel craft, which went a long way with us pilots. Plus having two separate hard points with the ability to carry a shit ton of concussion missiles or balance with proton torpedoes was nice. Factor in that you could do long bombing runs by dumping all your residual power from shield and blasters to over torque the P-sz9.7 engines and deliver proton bombs at nearly 200! Then throw in the twin ion cannons and quad blasters an you could singlehandedly disable capital ships.

Damn bantha-counters screwed the program. Who cared if they cost 300,000 credits each! So what if it was 5x the cost of a regular tie. Can a regular tie face down a victory class star destroyer and survive while disabling it's sublight engines while the interdictor holds them in place. Only complaint I ever had was the hyperspace engine. We didn't need it. a jump of more than a parsec was cruel and unusual punishment and severely degraded pilot performance. We were always based out of a cruiser or larger anyway. That could have saved a few credits.

I miss the old girl.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/d/d6/Defhanger.jpg

I miss that game.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:08:24 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Thread fail - lack of poll

Colonial Viper FTW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLIpUkIMOU&feature=related

Methinks I've missed a few episodes.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:09:59 AM EDT

[#12]

Glad to see some old compatriots from the campaign in the 90's. I tried out for the tie defender program but just didn't have the *twitch*. . . assault gunboats were what I preferred to fly.

X-wing vs viper: X-wing wins hands down. The viper has better maneuverability, but x-wing has inertial compensators, and shields, as well as superior sensors and weapons. Keep in mind that two different imaginary universes have two different physics "realities". IIRC, x-wing flight is modeled after atmospheric flight, and thus, it is completely unrealistic. It is, however, quite cool and fun to watch.

I"d love to get into this "x-wing alliance". . . tie fighter was the last of those games i played, and i loved it.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:31:39 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The statement that the top speed of the T-65 is 110 mglt (sublight) is patently ridiculous. The top speed of any vessel in sublight is just short of light speed,
if it has enough fuel to get to that speed. Space is a zero friction environment (notwithstanding flying through the dust clouds that were once planets,
destroyed by Death Stars) so you can get to any speed you want, subject to your fuel reserve limitations.

Every..and I mean EVERY...sci-fi space show or movie also commits the unpardonable sin of having engines lit all the time while in cruise. Bullshit. You cruise
with engines OFF. Engines are only on for acceleration, deceleration, or course adjustments. You won't slow down when you shut down the engines.

Also, nearly every space program or movie has applied aerodynamic handling principles to space battles. Only Space: Above and Beyond even came CLOSE to
getting that right, with fighter maneuvering sequences based on zero gravity, zero atmosphere ballistics rather than aerodynamic principles.

You do NOT bank to turn in space. You orient for Gs to be exerted in the axis you want them to be, but you don't bank turns!

The optimal fighter design for space is a sphere, as compact as possible, with huge attitude jets at all axes. Minimal surface area for a given volume, smallest
possible target. No need to compromise the design for non-existent aerodymamic functionality.

Since BSG is SLIGHTLY more realistic than Star Wars, from a physics perspective, I'd bet on the Viper. There is no cinematic evidence that a T-65 is even in the same
league as the Mark II in terms of maneuvering performance. In eyeball range, I'd bet on the Viper.

CJ

QFT,

A "starfighter" would probably look something like a "brilliant pebble" or the EKV's (Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle) of the later anti-ballistic missile intercept work that's being done now.

A powerful sensor telescope since things in space don't conveniently just loop around in tight quarters that are easily filmable in a 16:9 aspect ratio for the movies. (Even WWI/WWII areal combat airplanes are most often tiny and far away, space just adds several orders of magnitude.) Patches of phased-array radar will probably also be covering the surface. "Stealth" in space will probably not be possible, so you might as well run your search radar 24/7, as will your enemy. The thermodynamics of trying to "hide" yourself in space work at visible and radar frequencies, but in IR it's pretty much impossible. And any schemes to hide behind an "umbrella" or use a heat pump to make your ship "cold" (and fire away the heat energy as a laser in a non-threatening direction) don't work out either.

And add to that, here and now 20th/early 21st century technology has IR cameras/sensors that can view fractional differences in heat of galaxies and stellar objects hundreds, millions, and billions of light years away. So someone who is in the same solar system as you is going to "hide" or gain the element of "surprise" how exactly?

The fighters are far apart, and moving fast. Closing speeds are enormous. And will have engine nozzles pointed in four or more orthogonal directions for rapid maneuvering. Energy weapons look like small telescope domes that rotate 360 degrees. Railguns/coilguns for KW might have "barrels" that the ship needs to orient to aim them. You can't hide, and the strategy is alarmingly simple, you're either out of range to fight, or it's on... So you go in hot weapons blazing.

And since your life-expectancy is measured in minutes, with engagements winding up with both fighters "dead" being common, there's no pilot. It's either remote controlled or run by AI. In essence, the fighter is more akin to the current crop of UCAV's that are coming up now. A missile that fires off more missiles.

A "starfighter" will look something like this.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:36:27 AM EDT

[#14]

I wore out two joysticks playing XWing vs Tie fighter.

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:50:06 AM EDT

[#15]

No love for this guy either huh?

Posted: 3/17/2010 8:58:27 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
I'm inclined to lean X-Wing. Targeting system better than just a MK-I eyeball, hyperdrive, shields, heavy weapons to include proton torpedoes.

Not to mention the X-Wing has faster than light capability - something the Viper is sorely lacking in.

X-Wing FTMFW!

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:03:13 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Also, nearly every space program or movie has applied aerodynamic handling principles to space battles. Only Space: Above and Beyond even came CLOSE to
getting that right, with fighter maneuvering sequences based on zero gravity, zero atmosphere ballistics rather than aerodynamic principles.

Babylon 5 did it better - and earth ships had spinning sections for gravity (something Space:Above and Beyond missed).

Oh the B5 craft (the Starfury) also use the X wing configuration.

It's design has been considered for use by NASA:

Around 1995 ("two years into the show") NASA expressed an interest in the design as a work vessel for the International Space Station. They apparently consider the design to "make the most sense" for zero-g work due to the thruster and wing setup. They approached the shows co-executive producer (J. Michael Straczynski) for permission to use the design, which was given provided the Star Fury name was not altered

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfury

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:07:43 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
No love for the White Star?
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/babylon5/images/a/a6/White_star_fires.jpg

More of a cruiser/destroyer type than a fighter. Fighters should have a crew of 1-2, there is more than that just on the bridge of a Whitestar.

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:16:36 AM EDT

[#19]

X-Wing.

Star Wars FTW

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:20:08 AM EDT

[#20]

Viper. BSG is a far better series than any star wars junk.

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:22:23 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

/dorktime

That scene where the A-Wing crashed into the bridge of the Super Star Destroyer –– as far as we know the shields were still up, right?

If so, it implies that Star Wars shields are not actually any good at stopping kinetic damage –– they can stop energy, like lasers, but not actual physical objects. Physical objects have to be shot down.

Therefore the X-Wing's shields (which are probably a lower power version of the same technology) may be useless against the Viper's guns, which fire bullets.

Battlestar vs Star Destroyer may not even be an interesting fight –– the "flak cloud" the battlestars do would surely burn off most of the incoming laser fire and whatever gets though would surely have a hard time dealing with armor plating designed to withstand nukes. Meanwhile the Star Destroyer is going to get pelted by kinetic weapons.

The line just before that is, "We've lost the bridge deflector shield. Intensify the forward firepower." Go watch the movie 100x and say ten F* George Lucas's.

There are also numerous scenes where TIE fighters get vaporized in capital ship shields because they can't turn away fast enough.

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:46:26 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Neither, Valkyrie Veritech Fighter, FTW.

VF-1S Strike Valk for the win!

http://www.dfwstangs.net/coppermine/albums/userpics/10013/strikeroy.JPG

+1000

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:53:45 AM EDT

[#23]

GUYS, GUYS....

Thai Fighter.

Posted: 3/17/2010 9:54:29 AM EDT

[#24]

Death Blossom FTMFW!!

Posted: 3/17/2010 5:33:30 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Tie Defender. I flew one of those back in '94-95. It had better shields then all the rebel craft, which went a long way with us pilots. Plus having two separate hard points with the ability to carry a shit ton of concussion missiles or balance with proton torpedoes was nice. Factor in that you could do long bombing runs by dumping all your residual power from shield and blasters to over torque the P-sz9.7 engines and deliver proton bombs at nearly 200! Then throw in the twin ion cannons and quad blasters an you could singlehandedly disable capital ships.

Damn bantha-counters screwed the program. Who cared if they cost 300,000 credits each! So what if it was 5x the cost of a regular tie. Can a regular tie face down a victory class star destroyer and survive while disabling it's sublight engines while the interdictor holds them in place. Only complaint I ever had was the hyperspace engine. We didn't need it. a jump of more than a parsec was cruel and unusual punishment and severely degraded pilot performance. We were always based out of a cruiser or larger anyway. That could have saved a few credits.

I miss the old girl.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/d/d6/Defhanger.jpg

WOW! That brought me way back. I used to crack out on that game for hours, and yes, that was the best of the game.... I wish I could get a version of that game that works on vista

I found these the other day, but I haven't tried them yet.

X-Wing game installation patches.

OMG if this works, nobody is going to hear from me for about a week