Star Wars: New Imperial Federation

A Star Wars Role Playing Experience.
Home Page FAQ Team Members
  Register
Login 

Delete all board cookies

All times are UTC [ DST ]




New Topic Locked  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page
1, 2, 3
 >> Next 
  Print view
Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Offline 
 Post subject: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-13 04:52 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
((OOC: So, I bought a LEGO TIE Defender today and built it... But I noticed something... on the LEGO model, the wings are all able to spin about the cockpit, much like the B-Wing's s-foil. I figured it was a good idea to maybe use that idea into a new TIE Defender design (while building on Ace's previous one).

But then something interesting happened when I was looking around to make sure that the TIE Defender didn't already come with a pivoting gyro-stabilization system.

Image

Image

What's the difference between those two pictures? If you noticed the orientation of the three wings relative to the top of the cockpit, that's what I noticed too... which leads me to wonder if it doesn't have that already. Maybe SFS made two different versions, and whichever one was constructed depended who was the shift manager that day ;). Since none of the official books I've read make any mention of it, I'll work under the assumption that it doesn't so without further adieu...))

Designation: TIE Defender Mk III (TIE Paladin)

Purpose: The TIE Protector was a major improvement over the TIE Defender and with further advances in technology, including concepts from the TIE Interceptor Mk III and the New Republic's B-Wing, a new update to the TIE Protector will create the most up-to-date and powerful starfighter in the known galaxy. As well, the projected upgrades from the previous project will be re-evaluated and incorporated into this design.

Application: By incorporating the gyro-stabilization system found in the B-Wing into the cockpit pod where the three inverse dagger wings are fixed, the maneuverability of the Mk III Defender will be increased beyond what that of even the highly nimble and agile Mk II and Mk I. In theory, the TIE Paladin should be able to fly circles around an A-Wing.

From the TIE Interceptor Mk III, the dual reactor will provide the TIE Paladin with nearly double the power output. This will enable the TIE to handle an increased power demand from the improved shields, engines, the gyro-stabilization system as well as the cloaking device, beam module, enhanced ion cannons and upgraded laser cannons.

A new laser cannon design includes turbolaser exiting chambers that enable the TIE Paladin to use its laser cannons as either anti-starfighter or anti-capship weapons. When used as heavy lasers, the lasers are able to maintain a high rate of fire thanks to the extra power generator. When used as light turbolasers, the fire rate is decreased, but against slower moving capships, accuracy doesn't become much of a concern.

The tri-launch, variable payload distributor upgrade from the TIE Protector is equipped standard on the Mk III. The magazine capacity has been increased to 18 missiles.

A small, rear facing camera enables the removal of the aft blindspot that has otherwise been so problematic to the TIE Defender.

This fighter will be able to take on nearly any role or objective assigned to it.

Schedule: 3 weeks to create the new turbolaser exiting chambers. 4-8 weeks to develop prototype.

Visual Description: See above OOC comment pictures... The area right behind the cockpit will probably be a little more elongated to incorporate the gyro-stabilization system and extra reactor.

Technical Specifications:

Name/Type: TIE Defender Mk III (TIE Paladin)
Designer/Manufacturer: Tavish McFini / Sienar Fleet Systems
Combat Role: Superiority / Heavy Assault / Multirole.
Crew: 1
Length: 9.6 Meters
Speed: 165 MGLT
Acceleration: 23 MGLT/s
Maneuverability: 250 DPF
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 275 SBD
Hull Rating: 60 RU
Weapons: 4 Heavy Shadow Works Variable (Turbo)Laser Cannons, 2 fire-linked Shadow Works Ion Cannons, Tri-launch variable payload distributor (18 missile capacity).
Countermeasures: 1 Beam Weapon Compartment Module
Special: Life-Support, Cloaking Device.

Weaknesses: As before, the cloak is double-blind, meaning that sensors and targeting systems cannot be used while the cloak is engaged. It does provide the pilot an excellent surprise when combat is engaged or to set up ambushes. Since communications cannot work through the cloak, timing becomes key.

The cost of this starfighter will be higher than even that of the TIE Protector so it's deployment will be limited to elite pilots, commanders and special operations.

The pilot must manually switch the lasers to fire either as normal lasers or as turbolasers.

Projected Upgrades: Back-up shield generator, increased ion cannon power.

((OOC: The above might be subject to change... I had a lot more stuff written down, but then my browser crashed suddenly on me. :( ))


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-14 03:20 
User avatar
Lead Designer
Lead Designer

Joined: 2008-03-31 22:27
Posts: 413
Organizational Unit: Moonrider, RDOP1
The design is pretty straight-forward maybe a couple little details to examine. However, out of fairness to Project Everlight and the R-8 Pyrros, i'd have to ask why we'd want to develop this fighter given its cost.


“If scientists were breaking old ground we’d all have Bubonic Plague” -Miller Lite radio commercial.
"God made the bulk; the surface was invented by the devil" -Wolfgang Pauli


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-14 04:31 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
TIE Paladin vs. Project Everlight:

1) It possesses laser cannons that can fire shots with light turbolaser power without the need to add extra upgrade guns from the pilots limited upgrade account

2) Tri-launch variable warhead launcher can fire 3 missiles/rockets/etc. delivering a higher payload at once against a given target (so against B-Wings or K-Wings, one volley will do more damage).

3) Much stronger shields (275 SBD vs. 50 SBD). We need to build starfighters that will increase the survivability of our TIE pilots.

4) Much stronger hull (60 RU vs. 15 RU). Again, stronger hull implies better survivability for our pilots, especially the elite ones who we really cannot afford to lose.

5) Much more maneuverable for only 10 MGLT less speed. The TIE Paladin will be about to fly circles around A-Wings!

6) Cloaking device. 'Nuff said ;)

7) Ion cannons. This enables the TIE Paladin to take on a larger variety of roles which is something akin to what the Rebellion did back when they were fighting against the Empire. High value targets could be intercepted with these TIEs without the need to use entire naval task forces to hunt down, say, a lone shuttle or maybe a lone ship given a detour route while a diversion force is drawing the navy away.

8) Since the TIE Paladin is bigger, the dual reactors will provide even more power than Everlight, thus enabling the Paladin to recharge shields faster, or maybe reroute some of that power into engines or shields and outrun or outlast their adversaries.

Also, it's obvious that Project Everlight is meant to be a mass produced fighter meant to replace, say, TIE Interceptors as a mainline, cheap, and easily overwhelming snubfighter. The TIE Paladin is meant to fight the New Republic snubfighters fire with fire, ie, we play them at their own game, with better hockey sticks and more advanced skates (+1 hockey reference!!!). Yes, the TIE Paladin is a heavy investment, but, seriously, for the pilots we're designing it for, you can't put a value on experience and we need to give them the absolute best we can provide them with!




TIE Paladin vs. R-8 Pyrros

1) TIE Paladin is faster (165 MGLT vs. 140 MGLT)

2) TIE Paladin is more maneuverable (250 DPF vs. approx. 200 DPF). Again, it's flying circles around A-Wings!!! HOW COOL IS THAT?!? Also, in dogfights, generally, speed isn't as important as being able to twist and weave around to avoid being shot to ribbons.

3) Stronger shields (275 SBD vs. 200 SBD). Won't somebody please think of the (elite) pilots?!?! *looks for the most tear jerking, heart wrenchingly sad picture of Aquila* Could you really say no to this face? ;)

4) Stronger hull (60 RU vs. 40 RU). Do I really have to point out why this is a good thing again? Yes? Hmm... Think of it this way, it's only 9.6 meters long (okay, only 0.1 meter shorter) but it's able to take a 20 RU more beating! Okay, I don't know what the R-8 looks like... so I can't really comment on the targeting profile of the craft at different angles.

5) Turbolaser capable cannons. Again, this TIE is the perfect multirole craft, able to take on all comers, be they nimble, agile A-Wings, the more infamous X-Wings, heavily armed and armoured B- or K-Wings, corvettes, frigates, hell, I'd wager this thing could take on a Mon Cal cruiser (with some help of course, I'm not so haughty to think we could send in but a squad of these TIEs and expect them to take out a fully armed and equipped cruiser!)

6) Tri-launch variable missile launcher. Again, more warheads on target at once.

7) Cloaking device! Can't shoot what you can't see!!!

8) Life-support. Okay, so our pilots have inbuilt life support systems in their flight suits. Frankly, a comfortable pilot is a happy pilot and a happy pilot is a more productive pilot :D

9) Ion cannons. TIE Paladin is going to be disabling that mission critical craft that the R-8 will simply only be able to blow up.

10) Beam module. Jammer, decoy or jamming, take your pick, they'll all be useful!

The R-8 seems to be something of a mid-range fighter, like the X-Wing to the New Republic. The TIE Paladin is really a really souped up TIE Defender with loads of extras and the ability for the pilots of these craft to do just about anything and excel in it too!




That isn't to say the TIE Paladin is perfect. Nothing is. But I'm going to say that, without a doubt, the TIE Paladin possesses much of the technology that makes the TIE Defender great while also building on that, adding things like a cloaking device, making it into a TIE Phantom, more warheads, making it like a really fast Scimitar Assault Bomber (With less of a payload) and even turbolasers, adding a Skipray Gunboat quality to it.

Specialized > Generalized, yes, but when your generalized is this good, I think the pilots will be happy to one day fly a TIE like this.

Also, look at it this way. They said the TIE Defender was too expensive, and while it didn't replace the TIE Fighter or TIE Interceptor, it was still seen as a vastly superior craft. The point of the TIE Paladin isn't to replace our mainstream fighter, it's to add an elite fighter to our space force, to show that, "hey, we have veteran pilots too, and look how much more easily they will kick... your... ARSE!"

One last point, it doesn't seem quite fair to compare this ship to either of the two aforementioned projects. They were both designed, more or less, for different purposes. This TIE is designed to 1) improve upon the TIE Protector, 2) increase the survivability of our experienced pilots and 3) give me a reason to make my LEGO TIE Defender make sense with it's spinning wings!!! :D

EDIT - Oh, and it can fly circles around A-Wings! Did I mention that already? K, just making sure :D Seriously, if not for all the other awesome stuff on this fighter, I would make that tagline alone worth building it!!!


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-21 03:46 
User avatar
Lead Designer
Lead Designer

Joined: 2008-03-31 22:27
Posts: 413
Organizational Unit: Moonrider, RDOP1
Ok, without making a giant quote of the analysis you did, lol, i'll just sum up that the Defender mk3 is better in basically every category than the R-8 and Project Everlight. Now, part of the reasons that R-8 and Everlight weren't approved is because they are a lot more fighter than we need. The very original TIE Defender is absolutly superior to any NR fighter in service, so why need a better one?

Tavish McFini wrote:
Also, it's obvious that Project Everlight is meant to be a mass produced fighter meant to replace, say, TIE Interceptors as a mainline, cheap, and easily overwhelming snubfighter.


Project Everlight was going to be anything but cheap ;)

Tavish McFini wrote:
The R-8 seems to be something of a mid-range fighter, like the X-Wing to the New Republic.


R-8 wasn't going to be a mid-range fighter, it was going to be higher end than the Defender 1.

Tavish McFini wrote:
Also, look at it this way. They said the TIE Defender was too expensive, and while it didn't replace the TIE Fighter or TIE Interceptor, it was still seen as a vastly superior craft.


Vastly superior yes, but a fighter no matter how superior can still only engage one opposition fighter at a time. The NR outnumbers us about 4 to 1. So while one NR fighter keeps this thing busy for a while, it leaves the other 3 open to do whatever they want. Such as swing around onto the Defender3's tail and pop away at its shields maybe fling a missile or torp to get it to break off and save their buddy, or they can go off and harass our bombers or capships.

Tavish McFini wrote:
The point of the TIE Paladin isn't to replace our mainstream fighter, it's to add an elite fighter to our space force, to show that, "hey, we have veteran pilots too, and look how much more easily they will kick... your... ARSE!"

One last point, it doesn't seem quite fair to compare this ship to either of the two aforementioned projects. They were both designed, more or less, for different purposes. This TIE is designed to 1) improve upon the TIE Protector, 2) increase the survivability of our experienced pilots and


I'd just point out again that the Defender mkI is already much better than any NR fighter and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Just for a little extra comparison, lets check an estimated cost of this Defender mk3: gyro stabilization system, dual reactor system with associated increases to stats, specialized(if not experimental turbo/laser cannons), advanced ion cannons, improved(non standard) missile launcher. right there you'd be looking at twice if not greater cost than the Defender 1, throw on the cloaking device which runs 250K by itself and you're looking at a total price tag of 850K+. For that same amount you can get almost 5 Interceptor mk3s and engage that many more targets.


“If scientists were breaking old ground we’d all have Bubonic Plague” -Miller Lite radio commercial.
"God made the bulk; the surface was invented by the devil" -Wolfgang Pauli


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-21 11:23 
User avatar
Marshal
Marshal

Joined: 2008-09-29 14:26
Posts: 789
Location: The Cerberus
Custom Title: Director of Imperial Space Force Operations
Apologies if my comments are unwarranted Tom, i don't mean at all to step on your toes. Let's call it the ramblings of an old pilot.

It strikes me that the Defender's original design had one major flaw (apart from the blind spot which you will always have on a craft designed like this)

For a space superiority fighter it has a pathetic ability to bring ordnance to battle. Given the extreme level of skill required for any pilot to get close to a Defender the idea that they couldn't use heavy ordnance (fighter wise) is laughable. One thing that frustrates me when i fly a defender in a mission is the limited ordnance, so perhaps a tweaking of the MK III to becoming something of a heavy weapons variant is in order.

A possible tweak would be to sacrifice some of the agility for a second launcher, or more ammo. Given the hull rating, id say the figures in the DPF are perhaps a touch optimistic. And with extra armour comes extra bulk, so there is room there.

Just thinking laterally Fini, and no disrespect to your idea. Just strikes me that with all that extra meat on its bones, theres a little space to pack on an extra launcher or add extra ammo :).

As a last point, i am all too aware of the cost of the Defender. Having said that, a tweaked variant would be cheaper than a wholly new crazyass fighter based on the defender but without additions such as cloaking devices.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Feel free to ignore, delete or pick over my post.


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-23 20:28 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Mind if I choose the latter there Drav?

Not sure what you're after for "ordnance" given the tri-launcher and the ability for the lasers on this thing to fire beams of the light turbolaser capacity. If you're talking about pod mounted hardpoints for capital grade weapons, then I would suggest using one of your pilot ranks to take that as an upgrade. Otherwise, fly a bomber ;)

I'll agree with you that I could probably fit some extra ammo onto it, I wasn't sure what a realistic figure would be in that regard so I topped it at 18. Would it be a stretch to give it 24? 30? Numbers would have been nice... Also, if you're after missiles, take the missile pack upgrade.

As for an extra launcher, it's already able to fire 3 missiles at once so... do we really need to make this thing able to shoot 4 or 6 at once? Again, upgrade if it's not shooty enough.

You do have a point with the cloaking device. It will drive the costs up and I am perfectly willing to remove it to reduce costs and enable this craft to be slightly more cost-effective and still remain as the best space superiority fighter we have. But when you mean "tweaked variant", what are you getting at exactly?

I only ask because if you check the database, there's a whole listing of various upgrades pilots can take for their snubs (one per rank) which span just about everything. I included the cloak because there's no upgrade option for that if people felt so inclined and wanted it. That said, if you want a cheaper variant, just select a TIE Defender, slap up whatever upgrades you want and away you go. Again, I'm willing to remove it, maybe make it some sort of option/add-on that can be installed to the TIE for special missions (depending on the circumstances, permission from IMEXCO or the Director of Flight Operations) I'm just not sure if we can do that, treat the cloaking device as some sort of module that can be fitted and removed at will.

The TIE Paladin is meant to be a wicked crazy upgrade to the TIE Defender (and TIE Protector) in such a way that makes it into a fairly unique and somewhat new craft, allocating all your upgrade slots notwithstanding. After all, if we can justify designing Mk III Star Destroyers with a few simple additions and changes, I don't see why we can't do the same to a TIE.


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-24 11:00 
User avatar
Marshal
Marshal

Joined: 2008-09-29 14:26
Posts: 789
Location: The Cerberus
Custom Title: Director of Imperial Space Force Operations
Tavish McFini wrote:
Mind if I choose the latter there Drav?


Not at all! I just figured you'd probably go the route of laughing at my description of myself as an old rambling pilot, but guess i was wrong ! ;)

Tavish McFini wrote:
Not sure what you're after for "ordnance"


Ammunition based weapons. Missiles, Torpedo's, Rockets, Bombs, Cluster missiles, seismic charges, small mines, debris etc.

Tavish McFini wrote:
Otherwise, fly a bomber


No thanks :P

Tavish McFini wrote:
I'll agree with you that I could probably fit some extra ammo onto it, I wasn't sure what a realistic figure would be in that regard so I topped it at 18. Would it be a stretch to give it 24? 30? Numbers would have been nice


Personally, I dont think its a stretch to give it 24. My view is that with that kind of hull thickness to play with, a bit of smart design should enable the fitting of an extra few warheads.

Tavish McFini wrote:
, it's already able to fire 3 missiles at once so... do we really need to make this thing able to shoot 4 or 6 at once?


I kind of look at this like the F-15E. A variant of a successful aircraft that adds a potent new tool to the toolbox....without breaking the bank.

Tavish McFini wrote:
But when you mean "tweaked variant", what are you getting at exactly?


My point is simply that if we have a variant with *more* firepower, we can have a nice potent little variant to call up when needed. Personally, I think we should replace the TIE Phantom with a Defender variant that can cloak, but thats just me ;)

Tavish McFini wrote:
I only ask because if you check the database, there's a whole listing of various upgrades pilots can take for their snubs (one per rank) which span just about everything


Yes, but the point is that these upgrades are individual. Im looking at a variant that is produced in low numbers that can be called on when needed.

Tavish McFini wrote:
After all, if we can justify designing Mk III Star Destroyers with a few simple additions and changes, I don't see why we can't do the same to a TIE.


I do so agree. I think our crazy ass variant fighters should all be based off either the Avenger or the Defender, in order to keep costs down. Nobody argues that the basic Defender isn't a great fighter, but the idea that it is and always will be the pinnacle of starfighter design is a little silly. Even the Raptor had different variants - they were just never funded.

The Drav vision for your fighter would essentially be cram as much firepower on it as we can get away with, but think specifically about ordnance because it gives you options, beefs up the fighter's assault credentials, and gives us more options in battle for a fraction of the cost.

Hopefully that clears up where im coming from.

And im going back to my rocking chair. R&D is a bad fit for an old man !


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-24 15:26 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! *cue lightbulb moment* I get it!!! I get jokes!!! ;)

But seriously, I see what you mean now. See, this is why you're our resident fighter expert ;)

So, taking what Drav suggested (this is mostly for the R&D mods by the way), perhaps turning this into *two* projects is the way to go:

1) The TIE Paladin with no cloak but carry a ton of missiles (bombs/ammunition based weapons in the range of 24) but otherwise keep everything else proposed the same. So it's got loads of firepower (and, if I remember correctly, the launcher is able to carry various munitions, eg. a bunch of proton torps, space bombs and ion torpedoes to tackle whatever quarterback it's trying to tackle), plus powerful energy based weapons capable of tearing through most anything short of... oh hell, it could probably give a Mon Cal Cruiser a hard time if it was carrying nothing but Z-95 Headhunters ;) Just keep hitting the bridge with the light tubrolaser charged laser cannons!

2) The TIE *flips through D&D book for class names that haven't yet been used* Druid(too earth based) Pison(too mental sounding) Bard(too... Fini) Wizard!!! Which is, essentially, the TIE Protector but with maybe a non-double blind cloaking device? To keep costs down, we'd probably simply use the old TIE Defender design and slap on said cloaking device. Obviously this thing would be built in very, very, very small numbers, but hey, if it has anything going for it, the non-double blind cloak would be it ;)

What do you think of that Drav? Sorry I'm not naming them "TIE Defender/C" and "TIE Defender/KA" (for kick-ass) but I think giving them each their own distinct name makes it sound so much cooler, don't you?


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-27 12:42 
User avatar
Marshal
Marshal

Joined: 2008-09-29 14:26
Posts: 789
Location: The Cerberus
Custom Title: Director of Imperial Space Force Operations
Tavish McFini wrote:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! *cue lightbulb moment* I get it!!! I get jokes!!!


Woo!

Tavish McFini wrote:
But seriously, I see what you mean now. See, this is why you're our resident fighter expert


Nah, im just an old guy who hasn't learned he's past his prime :p

Tavish McFini wrote:
if I remember correctly, the launcher is able to carry various munitions


Yes, although you are able to carry less of the item the more powerful it gets i.e. more missiles than space bombs. Which is an interesting point. The USAF designed the SDB to fit inside the Raptor's weapons bays. Surely we can design a smaller bomb with the same or better yield than your basic space bomb.

Tavish McFini wrote:
To keep costs down, we'd probably simply use the old TIE Defender design and slap on said cloaking device. Obviously this thing would be built in very, very, very small numbers, but hey, if it has anything going for it, the non-double blind cloak would be it


I say the development cost of this kind of fighter would be more than paid off by scrapping the TIE Phantom in active service. Common platforms really do save a lot of credits, and make things a hell of a lot easier to maintain. Given we're at war, logistical efficiency should be sought wherever possible.

As for not naming them TIE Defender MK III or variant Z im not so fussed about that. In theory every single TIE is simply a variant of the fighter. We should have different names when there is a different use. These specialist craft are not your run of the mill Defenders. A good example is the EF-111 Raven. Built from the Aardvark, but a whole different purpose. It would have been stupid to call it the F-111E.

One thing I have been thinking about are those wings. Maybe they dont spin, but could we have a way to make them fold inwards? Im thinking like the Hornets do. Just a thought that perhaps Tom or Ace could shed light on.


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-27 23:24 
User avatar
Sergeant
Sergeant

Joined: 2009-05-16 07:02
Posts: 722
Custom Title: A sorrowful soul
Organizational Unit: 2nd Army , Idoneus Squad, FT Epsilon
Drops in and shunts a picture fini's way >.>

This guy does awesome detail X-x.

http://fractalsponge.net/tie_d/21.jpg

*runs out of thread with laser bolts blasting at his heels. (sorry but it is the new defender thread: this image is just 'beefier' then the old, >.> and more detailed. ) Shoot me if you must ;) sorry, I know I'm no idomir mod, but this was cool.


Image
"I have found there are very few problems in this lifetime which can't be
solved with the proper applications of high explosives." - Burn Notice


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 02:38 
User avatar
Lead Designer
Lead Designer

Joined: 2008-03-31 22:27
Posts: 413
Organizational Unit: Moonrider, RDOP1
Dravius Stari wrote:
Yes, although you are able to carry less of the item the more powerful it gets i.e. more missiles than space bombs. Which is an interesting point. The USAF designed the SDB to fit inside the Raptor's weapons bays. Surely we can design a smaller bomb with the same or better yield than your basic space bomb.


SDB is an interesting thing though, its a fair degree more accurate than previous bombs other than laser guided ones. If memory serves, its got a 6-8 meter CEP. So being more accurate, it can do the job with less bang. It is only a 250 lb bomb, but because of the specially formed and hardened body it supposedly has penetration capabilities equal to a 2,000 lb bomb.

We likely could make a more powerful/smaller space bomb but the trade off may not be so friendly. Two paths i can think of off hand would be more powerful but more unstable chemicals in the warhead=safety issues and more powerful chemicals or better detonation method = greater cost and warheads are already costly.

Dravius Stari wrote:
Tavish McFini wrote:
To keep costs down, we'd probably simply use the old TIE Defender design and slap on said cloaking device. Obviously this thing would be built in very, very, very small numbers, but hey, if it has anything going for it, the non-double blind cloak would be it

I say the development cost of this kind of fighter would be more than paid off by scrapping the TIE Phantom in active service. Common platforms really do save a lot of credits, and make things a hell of a lot easier to maintain. Given we're at war, logistical efficiency should be sought wherever possible.


There's a decent idea, the commonality aspect especially. We just leave our current Phantoms in service till they break down, then use them as hangar queens, and eventually recycle them completely. Could even put the Interchangeable cloak system on this new cloaking Defender, that a way it can be either double or single blinded depending on which material is handy/neccessary.

Dravius Stari wrote:
One thing I have been thinking about are those wings. Maybe they dont spin, but could we have a way to make them fold inwards? Im thinking like the Hornets do. Just a thought that perhaps Tom or Ace could shed light on.


How you thinking there Drav, like fold inwards while hangared to save space, or moving during flight for +manuverability?

While on the subject of wings, you're lacking a few Fini. Part of the penalty my TIE Int/3 pays for its dual reactors was needing two sets of wings.


“If scientists were breaking old ground we’d all have Bubonic Plague” -Miller Lite radio commercial.
"God made the bulk; the surface was invented by the devil" -Wolfgang Pauli


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 03:30 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
I'm horrible for being open for input... If Tom, Tyr or Ib (or any of the admins) have a problem with people posting in this thread other than the mods, I'll gladly take the flack :D

Anyhow, Jer... ZOMB!!! That picture is bloody awesome!!! I love it! Dunno what Drav's take on it is, but before I get too excited, I should probably ask if we have permission to use it? If we do, consider that the physical description for the TIE Paladin :D I owe you big Jer... uh...... I won't Force Choke Moira for no justified reason today!

Back to Drav (yeah, I work backwards... sorry Drav, but the awesome pic trumps the priority response list ;)):

Drav wrote:
Surely we can design a smaller bomb with the same or better yield than your basic space bomb.


Any takers? ;) I might try to come up with something, but don't wait on me because I've got a lot of other ideas/plans/musings mulling about on the surface of my thoughts.

Drav wrote:
I say the development cost of this kind of fighter would be more than paid off by scrapping the TIE Phantom in active service.


I'm not going to disagree with that statement, but I suppose that's more a decision left up to IMEXCO and the director of the space force to do IC ;)

Drav wrote:
One thing I have been thinking about are those wings. Maybe they dont spin, but could we have a way to make them fold inwards? Im thinking like the Hornets do. Just a thought that perhaps Tom or Ace could shed light on.


There's an idea. Actually, from the pic, it might be hard to justify the wings spinning around in the first place. I'm still going to try ;) Anyhow, how do you think that would aid the craft's agility?

Another point I feel like pointing out... Those little vent looking thingies on the lower portion of the cockpit ball... I'm going to guess launchers. Let's just assume that it's the tri-launcher... there'd be two of those (the second one on the opposite side) which means we'd have six launchers? (WOOT!) Even 2 dual launchers would make 4 and, given the size of that thing... I dare say we could probably carry a great load of extra munitions :D

So, taking everything into account so far:

Name/Type: TIE Defender Mk III (TIE Paladin)
Designer/Manufacturer: Tavish McFini / Sienar Fleet Systems
Combat Role: Superiority / Heavy Assault / Multirole.
Crew: 1
Length: 9.6 Meters
Speed: 165 MGLT
Acceleration: 23 MGLT/s
Maneuverability: 250 DPF
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 275 SBD
Hull Rating: 60 RU
Weapons: 4 Heavy Shadow Works Variable (Turbo)Laser Cannons, 2 fire-linked Shadow Works Ion Cannons, 2 Dual-launch variable payload distributors (28 missile capacity).
Countermeasures: 1 Beam Weapon Compartment Module, 24 chaff, 24 flares, 24 sensor decoys.
Special: Life-Support, rear-mounted-high-def-camera.

So, I changed a few things, keeping the stats in line with the picture. I figured with the extra bulk on the wing-supports, we could easily fit a bunch of extra countermeasures. I removed the cloak and now I'm tempted to say that, maybe, just maybe, we could bulk the fighter up a bit more...

For instance, there's still the two "cannons" at the bottom of the cockpit (no idea what to make those... I'd say lasers as a backup weapon...)

So, Mods, any input? I'm tempted to say I could probably put even more in, and if I could, I'd probably give the TIE backup shields and, pending any useful suggestions from anyone else, an extra set of heavy lasers (the non-turbolaser capable type) and maybe boost the speed? Anyways, I think it's safe to say this thing is going to be an absolute beast!!! In fact, given all the space it has, what if we just used this design as the basis for all the variants?

We could make a model with a cloak, removing the (turbo)lasers in favor of normal lasers, give it a ton of stealth capabilities, increase payload and sensors at the expense of, say, shields or countermeasures! Be a good ambush and surprise strike craft to strike vital NR convoys with :D I'm open to other variant options.

Post Tom Post Apperance:

Aren't proton bombs able to level a city block while leaving all the buildings around it untouched (relatively)?

With regards to the folding wings... I don't think that's going to give the TIE any extra maneuverability given that they're only going to fold inwards to outwards. Maybe it will help, I'm not 100% sure. Looking at the StarViper, wait, no, their wings don't fold around so much as they... shift, giving it an almost organic appearance.

With regards to the wings, I've got 2 points to make: 1) the TIE Paladin doesn't have as many lasers to power (4 opposed to the TIE Mk IIIs 8) and 2) I could, technically, take 14 extra power generators, giving me a x28 Rate of Fire to my TIE Interceptor Mk I at no penalty ;) Hey, check the Fighter Pilot entry in the database! In fact, that sounds tempting....

But, in all seriousness, I don't feel that it's entirely impossible to fit the second power generator without needing to slap an extra two-thirds worth of wings to the TIE. Besides, we've probably made some improvements to their design since the TIE Defender was first built and more efficient, better designed starfighter power reactors have been designed since then.


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 05:47 
User avatar
Sergeant
Sergeant

Joined: 2009-05-16 07:02
Posts: 722
Custom Title: A sorrowful soul
Organizational Unit: 2nd Army , Idoneus Squad, FT Epsilon
Image:

As far as I know, the artist posts his work on several 3d forums and I've seen the renders on a few other forums. .
http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/show ... cts-thread
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6&t=124353
http://www.3dscifi.com/forums/showthrea ... ething-big

Every time someone else wants to use an image the artist just said- please have a direct link back to his hompage, and a courtesy message. Homepage: http://fractalsponge.net/index.htm. We can try emailing him if you want it :) but sadly his site hasn't been updated since january :(.

The only images that the artist specifically wanted to be said in forum posts couldn't be used was his giant eclipse type ship the "bellator" and the "assertor" classes. But he maintained a gallery of previous ship types here as well, there is more then one tie fighter defender screens there X-x. http://fractalsponge.net/gallery/

The rationale is- following stardestroyer.net's , and 3dmeshes philosophy , his works on older established designed count as a 'derivative' of individualized works. But still under free use agreements.

As for your unjustified choking of Moira ;) .... there's always tomorrow :P

As a note for 'wing' space- the current defender, if you look at it subjectively, has the same number of tie panels as the present Mk III. It's just instead of that 'split wing' part of the overlap was sectioned off into its own separate wing. Would this scenario work?

If not (and it's really an issue) , Then in order to keep with the thematic defender type- what if you state that the defender's wings were lengthened and widened by a 1/4 meter to a half meter each-(random guess) it would probably cover the overdraft of any metric equivalency issues with needing 'more wings' by just going for 'larger volume of wingspace'. Don't know if this would work though :( X_x. It' would be up to tom to do the math. :P (He's the one that's good at that stuff ;) ) But it would keep the defender successor literally still a 'defender' in shape.)

Also- to cut down on munitions and 'bomb' space for ground missions- would it be worth it to have a variant of this thing have an energy bomblet generator X-x? I know you could blow up city blocks with one bomb and there might be better stuff out there- I just had this idea at random. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work ;)


Image
"I have found there are very few problems in this lifetime which can't be
solved with the proper applications of high explosives." - Burn Notice


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 11:48 
User avatar
Marshal
Marshal

Joined: 2008-09-29 14:26
Posts: 789
Location: The Cerberus
Custom Title: Director of Imperial Space Force Operations
First up again, apologies for out of the ordinary posting, but its a fighter and i have a vested interest. Also if its cool enough ill take it for myself :p (Ace dont read that)

Jericho Winters wrote:
This guy does awesome detail X-x.


The pictures are phenomenal. You have my thanks Jericho, and he does too.

Tom Saint wrote:
SDB is an interesting thing though, its a fair degree more accurate than previous bombs other than laser guided ones. If memory serves, its got a 6-8 meter CEP. So being more accurate, it can do the job with less bang. It is only a 250 lb bomb, but because of the specially formed and hardened body it supposedly has penetration capabilities equal to a 2,000 lb bomb.


I think you may have misunderstood me, i was talking about the physical size of the SDB, not its power although i would never sneeze at a firepower upgrade. The beauty of the SDB was (in theory) that you could take a Raptor, stock it full of them and a couple of Sidewinders/AMRAAMs for defensive purposes, and have it bomb the enemy in a stealthy way because the bombs could be carried internally. Part of the reason is that they are just over half the size of a JDAM. They are a helluva lot smaller than other laser/GPS guided bombs. I realize space weaponry is different to earth weaponry, but the concepts of size, volume and physics still apply in space!

Tom Saint wrote:
There's a decent idea, the commonality aspect especially. We just leave our current Phantoms in service till they break down, then use them as hangar queens, and eventually recycle them completely. Could even put the Interchangeable cloak system on this new cloaking Defender, that a way it can be either double or single blinded depending on which material is handy/neccessary.


Thanks. I got the idea from the German production of anti-tank weapons. If you read Speer's book, he talks about how they evaluated a few designs, picked the best one and made that the standard weapon which saved them a lot more than you might have thought. It also allowed them to produce a lot more. The Germans didnt lose because they had bad anti-tank weapons ;)

Tom Saint wrote:
How you thinking there Drav, like fold inwards while hangared to save space, or moving during flight for +manuverability?


The first one. One of the issues with Star Destroyers that is never fully explored - especially when we look at the ESDs is that of space. The volume of those ships is incredible, and even if you factor in things like meditation chambers, the numbers dont really add up in relation to the potential capacity to deploy fighters. Allowing the wings to fold inwards - essentially leaving a ball with three flat sides, could allow us to store a lot more. Theres also another idea and this is in relation to ground operations. Corran Horn camoflauged his X-wing on Garqi. An X-wing is not exactly small, but its shape allows for relatively easy camoflague. We don't have that luxury because our fighters are incredibly badly shaped for visual stealth. Folding wings could allow for a similar set up to Corran, and a lot more fun missions if we can do stuff like this.

I should stress that the idea of folding wings is something we should explore generally, and in a model like this would allow for some interesting field tests to be conducted. If its a horrible idea, we can always junk it.

My concern is the actual way its done. It strikes me as slightly disturbing that S-foils are so cumbersome in this universe, but im not so sure what could replace them. After all the wings are NOT s-foils. This is where my knowledge isnt so good, so i throw this to Ace/Tom to figure out :p

Tavish McFini wrote:
I'm horrible for being open for input... If Tom, Tyr or Ib (or any of the admins) have a problem with people posting in this thread other than the mods, I'll gladly take the flack


Me too.

Tavish McFini wrote:
Back to Drav


So nice to know a Vice Marshal is at the *bottom* of your to do list.

Kidding. Hehe. Carry on !

Tavish McFini wrote:
Any takers?


No.

Tavish McFini wrote:
Anyhow, how do you think that would aid the craft's agility?


If im completely honest, i suspect the craft would suffer a minor loss in agility. A good example would be the F-14 Tomcat. Swing wings kick ass, but they add a lot of weight to the aircraft which does inhibit your agility to a certain degree. Interestingly, the F-14 could cope with more stress than a Hornet or a Falcon, but generally speaking it had a bit of a disadvantage if we're comparing only agility On the other hand, if you were able to control the precise degree of folding, its possible you could increase agility in atmosphere. Im not so sure shape would affect performance in space, but i leave that to those who actually studied physics to comment on. So i suppose it comes down to the extra weight added by the folding mechanism. My proposal is grounded in the fact that one, you could carry more per ship because of the smaller imprint, and two, it would allow you to camoflauge easier. And yes, I am thinking of a mission where pilots hide the crafts, start them up and unleash hell.


Tavish McFini wrote:
I'm not going to disagree with that statement, but I suppose that's more a decision left up to IMEXCO and the director of the space force to do IC


Director you say? lets look him up! Actually there is a Grand Marshal of the Space Force, a filler blank till I get close enough in rank (assuming i do) to assume such a role. Where I am now, its sort of like a 1star or 2star general being head of the relevant branch. Nice in theory but would never happen in practice. Of course informally...;)

In any case, thats my personal view. Its up to IMEXCO to decide. I'm just a guy in a suit with a mask.

Tavish McFini wrote:
Another point I feel like pointing out... Those little vent looking thingies on the lower portion of the cockpit ball... I'm going to guess launchers. Let's just assume that it's the tri-launcher... there'd be two of those (the second one on the opposite side) which means we'd have six launchers? (WOOT!) Even 2 dual launchers would make 4 and, given the size of that thing... I dare say we could probably carry a great load of extra munitions


Historically launchers are in about that spot. Im terrible with the physics of fitting in extra ammo, so ill leave that to Tom/Ace. I think 24 is just right, but thats just me :p

Tavish McFini wrote:
I don't feel that it's entirely impossible to fit the second power generator without needing to slap an extra two-thirds worth of wings to the TIE


In my view, this would be better than backup shields, because if you had more power generally then *you* decide what gets it. One thing that frustrates a pilot is that you run out of things to shunt energy from. So by all means, have the beams, lasers, ions etc.

Sorry for that uber long post in area thats not mine. I really will be quiet now.

*runs for chair*


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 16:42 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Pfft, don't worry about it Drav! I welcome your input, as well as the input of everyone else here. Besides, if it means a fighter that people are going to want to fly in the future, than I will have done my job!

Drav wrote:
In my view, this would be better than backup shields, because if you had more power generally then *you* decide what gets it. One thing that frustrates a pilot is that you run out of things to shunt energy from. So by all means, have the beams, lasers, ions etc.


Yeah, I was thinking along those lines. Actually, that just reminded me of Ace's er... shield battery project which, if I remember correctly, was little more than a few capacitors that would fill when the power supplied from the generator was not entirely used to power the rest of the fighter (excess power in other words) so maybe that'll be a better option than actual "backup" shields.

Drav wrote:
...if you were able to control the precise degree of folding, its possible you could increase agility in atmosphere.


Well, again, if we look at the StarViper, it had pretty good agility despite all that frontal surface area because its wing movements were finely controlled (by a computer) so I don't see why we couldn't do something similar to this snub.

I see where you're coming from regarding trying to reduce the size, but I don't suspect the problem with holding TIEs stems from the wings so much as the fact that they're pretty big in terms of cargo volume... What I mean by that is, if you took a TIE Fighter and an A-Wing and tried to fit a box around it, the A-Wing would require a smaller box than the TIE Fighter. Same goes with just about any NR fighter versus the TIE Defender, the Defender is huge in nearly every axis while, say, a B-Wing might be long and a tad wide, but it's not very high. Folding the wings inward might shave a bit of space, but overall, I don't imagine this would amount to a very big difference.

If we really wanted to fit more TIEs into a hanger, we should probably look at fitting the floor with TIE racks ;)

Drav wrote:
And yes, I am thinking of a mission where pilots hide the crafts, start them up and unleash hell.


You know what always concerned me? How the hell would pilots get in and out of their TIEs on the ground if they were to land, say, in an empty clearing with no access to stairs or such? Look at an X-Wing, you could probably use one of the lasers to climb the wing, walk on top and swing yourself into a cockpit and off you go. A TIE Fighter would be... nuts since, unless you had a rope ladder with you in the cockpit to get out with in the first place, it's a long way down with no easy way back in.

Actually, as an aside... I never did explain how Aquila got back into her interceptor during C1M31... We'll just say she lucked out and found a ladder :D

On that note as well, I used to own a small TIE Interceptor model... When it rested on a table, it would pitch forward, the dagger points far enough away from the center of gravity to cause it to tip over and not rest on the only small, horizontal bit of wing. That said, the TIE Defender has a larger, flatter area to remain level if resting on the ground, but they don't have landing gears and again, going back to the earlier point... how would you get in and out of a TIE that, in all possibility, could be a few meters above the ground? Sadly, I think the number of Dark Jedi in the space force is zero so, TK notwithstanding and internal cargo space still limited as like any TIE? You see where I'm going with this?

Drav wrote:
We don't have that luxury because our fighters are incredibly badly shaped for visual stealth. Folding wings could allow for a similar set up to Corran, and a lot more fun missions if we can do stuff like this.


And I'm all for the interest of keeping things fun :D If we can overcome the aforementioned detail (which is probably pretty minor anyways), we'll be golden to play the New Republic at their own game ;)

Tom wrote:
There's a decent idea, the commonality aspect especially. We just leave our current Phantoms in service till they break down, then use them as hangar queens, and eventually recycle them completely. Could even put the Interchangeable cloak system on this new cloaking Defender, that a way it can be either double or single blinded depending on which material is handy/necessary.


I'm also all for that. But what's the "interchangeable cloak system" agin?

Jericho wrote:
Also- to cut down on munitions and 'bomb' space for ground missions- would it be worth it to have a variant of this thing have an energy bomblet generator X-x? I know you could blow up city blocks with one bomb and there might be better stuff out there- I just had this idea at random. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.


I would, but again, pilots can choose this option as a potential upgrade to their snub though, admittedly, I slapped on a while slew of countermeasures so I don't see why we couldn't add an energy bomblet generator. I suppose the only question would be "where"?

Why? Well, let's assume I keep the rotating wings for now... I don't think a pilot will be too happy trying to drop bombs when the generator is above him because he had to twist around and avoid being shot to ribbons by a lancer ;) I was thinking maybe beneath the cockpit, where the two "lasers" are.

If we remove the whole spiny wing bit, than we could probably nestle the generator right beneath the TIE, between the two lower wings.

Jericho wrote:
Then in order to keep with the thematic defender type- what if you state that the defender's wings were lengthened and widened by a 1/4 meter to a half meter each-(random guess) it would probably cover the overdraft of any metric equivalency issues with needing 'more wings' by just going for 'larger volume of wingspace'.


Actually, upon another look, I was going to say, for some reason, it seems the wings of the TIE Defender in the pic you gave us Jer are already a bit larger than the default wings of a Defender. Maybe it's just because of all the different viewing angles? Maybe that's just me...

Things to consider (this is more a note for me to keep track of things discussed so I don't have to re-read everything):

  1. Energy bomblet generator
  2. Folding and/or rotating wings
  3. Shield recharge battery
  4. (Interchangeable) Cloaking Device
  5. Launchers and missile capacity
  6. Figure out how people will get in and out of TIE when not docked on rack in warship


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 16:50 
User avatar
Emperor
Emperor

Joined: 2008-03-24 08:12
Posts: 1659
Custom Title: Sith Apprentice
Organizational Unit: First Fleet NIFSS Nemesis
1) I attempted to contact Ansel Hsiao of fractalsponge.net a few years back but never got in touch with him. Consequently, I've never used any of his pictures or models. I've learned since that he's not very concerned about who uses his work, except that he would like credit for it. We're holding moral high ground in this, because both Family Guy and The Force Unleashed has used his models without as much as saying thanks (LFL was not involved, a third party company nicked it).

As of 2009, he said this:
Quote:
Date Posted: 12/7/09 5:59pm Subject: Family guy and scifi3d meshes
Hi Brian,

I apparently am unable to PM because I haven't posted enough on the boards :P.

I've had something like this happen before; my star destroyer mesh was slightly modified (texture) and used in the Force Unleashed trailer. I don't really care that I'm not paid for the use of the meshes (after all, I did release them, but for non-profit use). I'm more concerned about the lack of credit or a request for the meshes' use. Also, it's a pretty annoying situation for the production staff that might have been charged for work that the visual effects team didn't do.

If you do get a chance to contact the staff, I'd like to see if there's a chance to get an acknowledgment of some sort for the use of my mesh. I'm fairly certain the mesh used in the trailer is mine, from the screenshots I have (after all, a comparison is easily made on their end between the model they got/used and the one I released on scifi3d.com).


Tavish McFini wrote:
With regards to the wings, I've got 2 points to make: 1) the TIE Paladin doesn't have as many lasers to power (4 opposed to the TIE Mk IIIs 8) and 2) I could, technically, take 14 extra power generators, giving me a x28 Rate of Fire to my TIE Interceptor Mk I at no penalty Hey, check the Fighter Pilot entry in the database! In fact, that sounds tempting....


Check again :) You can only pick one extra power generator.

Dravius Stari wrote:
First up again, apologies for out of the ordinary posting, but its a fighter and i have a vested interest. Also if its cool enough ill take it for myself :p (Ace dont read that)


First you'll have to test fly Jacen's latest batch of chocolate-dip darkside cookies. He's ever more into alchemy these days.


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 18:59 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Database wrote:
Systems marked with * can only be fitted once, however you can select it twice for a backup unit if applicable. Modifications which you can select more than once are addressed as I, II, III etc for each step. For example, Afterburner II, Improved Engines III. You can add, change, or remove a maximum of two modifications per mission. Should you lose your fighter in combat, you have to start over with a standard fighter of your choice, but you retain the right to install as many mods on it as your rank level. If you temporarily switch out your usual fighter for another, the new craft will be a standard fighter - however you can still add one mod to it before you fly it, or two if you have a rank level of at least 2. You should list your current mods in your character profile, and it is highly recommended to roleplay out fitting and trying out your new mods. These mods are available for all pilots, including Army Pilots.


Database wrote:
Extra Power Generator (ROFx2)


... Okay, I sit half-corrected. Why half? Well, you are right that I can only pick one extra power generator but that doesn't exclude me from taking an extra power generator XIV to provide me with the same x28 ROF ;)

Which begs the question, why not include Extra power generator XIVs to begin with? Maybe because then someone might take an extra power generator XXVIII as part of their fighter upgrade :P

And as for the picture, what if we send him a chocolate cake and plaster his name all over it? ;) I'm all for giving him credit because, seriously, that pic is AWESOME!!!

And what's "2)" there Ace? You can't start a post with "1)" and leave us hanging like this!!!


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-02-28 20:34 
User avatar
Emperor
Emperor

Joined: 2008-03-24 08:12
Posts: 1659
Custom Title: Sith Apprentice
Organizational Unit: First Fleet NIFSS Nemesis
Tavish McFini wrote:
And what's "2)" there Ace? You can't start a post with "1)" and leave us hanging like this!!!


I'll get back to you on that one... wish me luck.

Edit (and bumped):

2)

Ansel Hsiao wrote:
Nonprofit use of the images on my website is fine, as long as they're credited in the image (link to my site is fine).

Have fun,
Ansel (FS)


Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-03-01 21:23 
User avatar
Grand Admiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: 2008-03-30 17:36
Posts: 1466
Location: ESD Intimdator
Custom Title: Fleet Commander, Self-Proclaimed Bartender, Baron
Organizational Unit: Third Fleet, Task Force Conquest, ESD Intimidator
Two words: Awesome!


Image
- Admiral McFini and Ensign Hales discovered why Executor-class Star Destroyers seldom ram anything.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Offline 
 Post subject: Re: TIE Defender Mk III
PostPosted: 2011-03-03 14:00 
User avatar
Mercenary

Joined: 2009-07-15 09:38
Posts: 328
Custom Title: Capsuleer-Pilot
Organizational Unit: Minmatar Navy-Operation Castor Task Force
Technically, one word Finster! ;)

My question for you, is do we have a add-on generator that can make the ROFx28 or that a separate project? Since, we all know I don't read that part of the manual (having no pilots in my list of characters). ;)


"Fukaba fuke shana wa sunda zo ki no kaze" -Death Poem, Haiku - "Blow if you will, Fall wind...the flowers, have all faded"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
New Topic Locked  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page
1, 2, 3
 >> Next 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:  

cron
Powered by Skin-Lab! © Alpha Trion

RPG-D NIF Affiliates