Talk:Missile Boat

Image
What do you guys feel about using the original TIE Fighter style modeling for the Missile Boat, rather than the XWA modeling? XWAUpgrade has an excellent set of renders here. We would have to, of course, ask them for permission before using any of their images--but if you guys agree, I could go ahead and ask them for a screenshot that'd be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. --GrandAdmiralJello 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We generally don't use unofficial images here. The pictures I generated from the XWA .OPTs are sort of a gray area, as nearly the same effect could be accomplished by taking a screenshot in the flight engine (though it it wouldn't look quite as good or as consistent) and screenshots of unmodified games are allowed. If I could, I'd use the XWA .OPTs to render new pictures for most of the XWA-only vessels, but I can't. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We cannot use unofficial images here. That's basically fanon images. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have UCP on XWA and it is very nice, but I doubt images could be used of ships that have been substantially changed cosmetically (e.g. Missile Boat, R-41, Toscan). I don't know about others, but if possible it would be good to use screenshots of non-fanon ships that are faithful to other depictions. For example, the ships seen in Rebellion and the MC-90 are reproduced well in the upgrade and would give some good alternative images. YIIMM 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we need actual images of them. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought. Most fan-produced artwork certainly would not belong in this site. However, there is a bit of a problem here in that there are two rival depictions for the craft--and TIE was the only one to actually feature it in any real capacity. XWA has some significant problems with the Missile Boat, including improper armaments and a lack of any sort of SLAM system at all. --GrandAdmiralJello 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why we shouldn't use it in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that we are and have been using it. It's what's currently being used now, and that's part of the reason why I feel it's problematic. --GrandAdmiralJello 09:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then it should be fixed. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite right, which is why I suggested using the XWUpgrade image because it's a textured version of the original TIE Fighter image. I'll see what XWAUpgrade thinks about letting us use an image. --GrandAdmiralJello 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But it has to be an actual, canonical image. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And that is the problem in a nutshell. To summarize: The Missile Boat in Star Wars: TIE Fighter is a nice, curvy-looking fighter, but it has no textures--only shaded single-color surfaces. The Missile Boat in Star Wars: X-wing Alliance has textures, but the fighter's shape is totally different from the TIE Fighter version. The XWAUpgrade guys decide to base their upgraded model on the curvy TIE Fighter version, and it looks nice--it's what the X-wing Alliance version should have looked like. But it's not canon. So unless someone can get a screenshot from the DOS CD version of TIE Fighter, the only image we can use is the one that's up there. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And Jello to the rescue! I've finally figured out how to get screenshots on TIECD, and rather than use the admittedly silly untextured image, I've gotten a screenshot of the pretty lady inside the hangar. I'm going to put it up now, so let me know what you folks think. :) --GrandAdmiralJello 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please post it here first? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already put it up--my apologies. But at any rate, here is a link to the actual image itself. --GrandAdmiralJello 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, please don't remove the other image in the process. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jello, you magnificent barve... Finally, a canon pic that doesn't look goofy. Why they couldn't make the XvT/XWA Missile Boat look like that is quite beyond my comprehension. I'd be inclined to switch the TIECD pic to the infobox and put the XWA pic in a BTS section. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)