Talk:TIE Advanced x1/Legends

Please settle the solar v. radiator panels debate here, not on the page. --SparqMan 06:43, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) TIEs can accelerate at at least 100,000m/s². If we assume that the mass of a TIE is 10 megagrams, the required power is 1GW. It is simple physics. Even if close to a star and properly alligned, one could only get kilowatts out of solar panels the size of the radiatorpanels on TIEs. It is too bad that Star Wars started before we discovered that Neutrinos have mass. TIEs sans the twin-Ionic Engines could be perfect spheres propelled by the impulse of Neurtinobeams which could also carry away wasteheat. ¡They would truly look like flying eyeballs then! “¿Is that a giant 2-meter-across flying eye?” “No.”  “It is an Imperial fighter either suspended by neutrinoimpulse or repulserbeam.” —— Ŭalabio‽ 00:01, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC) Propaganda of the New Republic calls them solar panels. Logic dictates that they are radiatorpanels. Both sources state that they are panels. ¿Why do not we just call them panels and leave it at that? That solves the problem. -— Ŭalabio‽ 01:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC) Can I just throw out the totally random suggestion that since even TIEs have artificial gravity and inertial compensators, and hyperspace-capable ships also have to have some mechanism to prevent relativity doing wierd things during a lightspeed jump (is relativistic shield a canon term, or just inferred?) it might be possible to manipulate the mass of a TIE sufficiently to make sense of its otherwise bizarre solar-powered ion-drive without resorting to retconns?- -McEwok 04:12, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * They're OFFICIALLY solar panels. --Azizlight 07:08, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That's why I reverted it once more to "solar-panels" and "a solar ionization..." Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:50, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That is just propaganda of the New Republic designed for making TIEs appear weaker. They simply cannot be solar powered.  The probable have fusion or hypermatter reactors.  We already abandoned the propagands that TIEs are totally unshielded and lack ejectionseats.  It is all a matter of wattage:
 * It doesn't matter, Walabio. Official sources clearly say they are solar pannels, despite your arguement. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:04, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the calculations of people like Curtis Saxton, there is no reason to assume the Galaxy Far, Far Away operates under the same principles of physics as our own galaxy. Even if it does, perhaps the solar panels include technologies beyond our comprehension. Regardless, the official sources stand. --SparqMan 00:17, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I hate that "different physics" argument. Hate it a lot. But my feelings on the matter don't change the fact that the "solar panels" are canon, nor do anyone else's outside of the Lucasfilm sphere of influence. Logic doesn't become canon until LFL says so. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:31, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Therefore, Walabio, it is solar panels and solar ionization, not the way you thought it was. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:38, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The goofy physics might be worth briefly mentioning in a "Behind the scenes" section of the TIE series page, though.  &mdash; Silly Dan  00:56, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * But the cannot be solar panels; so therefore they are not solar panels. Solar panels is just plain wrong.  Since I stick to logic  Sarek, being a Vulcan, should stick to logic too ;-),  while you stick to the propaganda of the New Republic, ¿why do not we compromise?:
 * Is there a source that actually states that "solar panel" is New Republic propaganda? Or did you just make it up? --Azizlight 01:11, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything is propaganda of the New Republic. The victors write the historybooks. - — Ŭalabio‽ 01:18, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this website is to document Star Wars canon. Therefore, though you may be correct it is our job to quote the New Republic propaganda, not dispute it. I've always been an Imperial at heart, since my first exposure to the EU was the original TIE Fighter game, and frankly, I would love it if they released a book written by Curtis Saxton and Michael Wong, whose in-universe perspective is that of the Council of Moffs in 40 ABY, to correct all of the things that we feel defy logic. But until they do, we have to document these inconsistencies as-is. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  01:34, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I have fleshed out mine idea about just having panels. I figure that we can link panels to an article explaining that the propaganda of the New Republic stating that the panels are solar panels, but it makes far more sense that these are radiators.  This article would be metaStarWars, like the article for George Lucas.  ¿Does anyone object to this?  I would like to strip out the solar and radiator before panel immediately and start writing the article about panels this weekend. - — Ŭalabio‽ 03:29, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * That falls under the category of unofficial speculation, and what Wikipedia would call "original research." I don't think you should write it an an article on this wiki, but I'm sure a complete treatment would be welcome on some other site (like a StarWars.com blog, TheForce.Net forum post, etc.).   &mdash; Silly Dan  03:55, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't need an article about panels. They are called solar panels. Your radiator panel theory is essentially fanon. Enough already. --Azizlight 04:01, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but again, speculation, Jedi Council Forums, and so forth. &mdash; Silly Dan  04:24, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's evidence that they served both functions; in Talk:TIE Republic, McEwok posted a quote from Rogue Planet about the prototype fighters in that book: "twenty meters wide, with broad, flat cooling vanes terminating their wings. The compartments were compact, spherical, hardly luxurious." Assuming these are early T.I.E.s - a fair assumption - then, at least in these early models, the wings did serve a radiator function in addition to any solar collection function they might have served.  jSarek 04:47, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Let me start over. We should be accurate. Solar panels is inaccurate. Masslightening does not explain the energyoutput of the weapons. I just want the articles accurate. Now I know why Copernicus waited until after his death for publishing; fighting the prevailing dogma is such a drag. A way exists for being accurate without contradicting dogma; we could just call them panels  (no link to article about panells)  and say nothing more. We could be both dogmatic and accurate at the same time. It would be like stating that planets are moving bright objects without going into whether they revolve around the Earth or Sun. If dogma is wrong and we cannot be accurate, we should be agnostic. —— Ŭalabio‽ 05:24, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * In light of what jSarek just said, maybe we can still call them solar panels - because that's what they are always called - and mention their radiator function too. --Azizlight 05:29, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just did a fairly extensive edit on the TIE series to give a general overview of the canon facts about TIE technology and the disputes about those facts. Both sides of the "solar panels" problem are, I think, fairly represented. Of course, I am biased toward the "radiator" idea and I'm not equipped with a huge library of sources, so some more editing certainly wouldn't hurt as long as we can all keep an NPOV. &mdash;Darth Culator  (talk)  13:13, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that this is all the fault of Mister Pillsbury, the teacher who taught me physics way back in High School. I still remember his warning to  ' “¡Mind your vectors and scalars. '  My friend Patricia will gloat about this '' (She always asks the rhetorical question, “¿Would you rather be happy or right?”. Sometimes I wish I would be happy.). ''	—	— Ŭalabio‽ 14:41, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Marvel Star Wars #61, "Screams in the Void", shows that TIEs' chin-blasters have dedicated and finite "energy stores", which the Rebels in that story jury-rig to produce a single blast that can punch through a Star Destroyer's shields. When this is done, they do not replenish. Ergo, the energy output of the weapons has nothing to do with the ion engines, and doesn't preclude the idea of explaining solar-powered ion drives by appealing to mass-lightening technology. --McEwok 15:34, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * And now I've edited the TIE series stuff. I removed more of what was there already than I'd have liked, but even more editing, and probably the removal of random Ewok jabbering, would definately improve it... --McEwok 16:08, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Random Ewok jabbering? Are you talking about what I wrote or what you wrote? Or both? :-) &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  16:40, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * What I wrote, quite emphatically. I mean stuff that makes sense in Ewok (ie, in my thought processes) but not generally. --McEwok 20:47, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Errata
I started out trying to show how much more power a TIE has than F16s. I could find the linear acceleration for the F16s '' (the radial acceleration of 90m/s² was not what I wanted). '' When I figured the Wattage for the Ties, I got the numbers mixed and came up with a ridiculous Wattage. After finding the linear acceleration for F16s ''' — ¡a mere 10m/s²! —, ''' I redid the calculations and found mine errors. I shall show my work this time so that others can check it:

A TIE is basically a sphere with a radius of ~1m. Its volume should be ~4m². It its density is ~½g/ml, its mass is 2Mg.

W	=	½mv²

W	=	½(2,000kg(100,000m/s²)²)

W	=	10,000,000,000,000

10TW

That is quite a bit for solar.

Let us compare this with an F16:

W	=	½m(v²)

W	=	½(10,000kg(10m/s²)²)

W	=	500,000

500KW

A TIE converts twenty million times the energy into work than an F16.

If a TIE would divert all of the energy of a second into a weaponblast, it could vaporize 4423.0721597686M³ of hot water. That is a cube 16.41501717853m on each side.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 08:04, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to say again that they weren't solar panels? Give it up already, will you? Star Wars is different from real-life Earth. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:23, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * It is called intellectual honesty. I tried computing the power output of the F16 and the TIE.  I did not have the linear acceleration of the F16.  I just focused of the TIE.  I mixed up the two sets of numbers and got garbage  (garbage in, garbage out).  I got the linear acceleration for the F16, and while computing its power output, realized my mistake about the TIEs.


 * This also emphasizes the militarypower of the Empire; no Earthmilitary could defeat a single TIE with conventional weapons  — even during the dark of night.  The Empire rather than sending a TIE to Earth, probably would send an Imperator and give us a choice between surrender or ΔBase0.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 02:45, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * So? I don't see any point to this whole discussion. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 13:02, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Move?
Currently, "TIE Advanced x1" redirects to this page. Does anyone think that it should be the other way around? "TIE Advanced" is a general term for a number of advanced TIE designs, including the TIE Avenger (I believe the TIE Fighter even stated that the official name of this ship was "TIE Advanced," and that "Avenger was only a nickname). The x1 specificies the exact prototype model. JimRaynor55 18:41, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:15, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Episode II Appearance.
A source, please. An image would be even better. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/386/tie9kv.jpg --Rune Haako 01:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not a TIE Advanced x1. And how do you even know that it was a standard TIE Fighter and not something else? If you can give no hard-core evidence, I'm removing it. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen to the Episode II DVD Commentary John Knoll confirms it during the scene though he just says three tie fighters, but the one in the middle looks different from the other two so a assumed it was a TIE Advanced x1.--Rune Haako 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not a TIE Advanced x1. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, sorry.--Rune Haako 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume things. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, sorry.--Rune Haako 02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to apologize. Admiral J. Nebulax 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The TIE Intereceptor existed BEFORE the TIE Advanced x1
I contest the notion that the TIE Advanced came out before the TIE Interceptor. In the X-Wing game as well as Rebel Assault, TIE Interceptors exist before and during the Battle of Yavin. Of course we all know that Lucas' people made the x1 first, then reused the wings for the TIE Bomber and then cut up the x1 wings for the dagger-shaped wings of the Interceptor. But in the Star Wars universe, the TIE Fighter was first, the TIE Bomber came second, the TIE Interceptor came third, and the x1 came after.

Also the CCG card states the TIE Advanced predates the Interceptor. 199.254.212.44 17:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew when I wrote the "Interceptor before x1" that there are conflicting statements in the Star Wars Universe, I am no keen expert of Star Wars. But since there are many sources stating that the TIE Advanced pre-existed the Interceptor I propose that there compromise that makes sense why, in the X-Wing Computer game, TIE Interceptors appeared at the pre-Yavin Battle of Turkana.The TIE Advanced x1 was BEING TESTED AND TRIALED before the Battle of Yavin, due to the experimental hyperdrive and shielding process resulting in few being built. At the Empire demanded a cheaper alternative, therefore Sienar diverted work from the TIE Advanced program to the TIE Interceptor. All of these events occuring prior to the Battle of Yavin and prior. It seems plausible that the Interceptor was a cheap TIE Fighter conversion in order to compete with the X-Wings and new A-Wings. As you can tell, its simple design shows that it could have easily been designed and churned out shortly after the expensive TIE Advanced x1s began to come out, probably before the Battle of Turkaana. Please tell me if my notion can be confirmed or denied. I wish to know when the first Interceptor came off the production line

Search "Battle of Turkana" and you will see that 0.5 BBY there were TIE Interceptors

http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Image:Turkana.png
 * Uh, this is all due to games. LucasArts does stuff like this only for the game. Technically, the Interceptor was after the Advanced x1. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for informing about the incontinuity with the games, when I wrote the article I was not sure if there was some legitimacy to the games. Oh well, it makes sense why Vader was so desperate to get on the scene with his x1 before the poorly armoured TIE Fighters got slaughtered in dissaray. And after seeing the Battle of Yavin, its very obvious, if the Empire was going to defend its great superweapon, it was going to throw out the best they could, and TIE Fighters and Vader's x1 were that, therefore concede my argument. I guess the TIE Interceptor issue for me goes as follows "what's better, accuracy or a good story" But for reality of the Star Wars Universe, I have to think, Poor old Tarkin, he had such a bad fighter force, except for Vader's x1   I can imagine Tarkin with that officer coming to him at the last minute. "Sir I suggest we ready your ship now!" - OFFICER "No! Spew out more TIEs! - TARKIN and KABOOM and off goes the sole TIE survival, the x1 spinning out of control, what a pity
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New picture of X1
Due to a recent disagreement over a TIE Bomber image I am posting an image in the discussion panel in advance of posting it on the page. It is a good head-on shot of the TIE Advanced x1. Should be placed as a secondary image or not?
 * Perhaps as a secondary image, but certainly not the main one. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not contesting the main image Nebulax, it's one of the better computer-generated images I have seen anyway. If anyone else has an opinion or if someone has another image recommendation please post here for review. On another note, for those unfamiliar to the X-Wing Collectors series game, and its disregard for the canon Battle of Yavin particularly the portrayal of TIE Avengers instead of a TIE Advanced x1 and a non-existant battle between X-Wings and a Frigate, please go to the X-Wing game site, and push for X-Wing's version of the battle of Yavin to be officially NON-CANON and not posted.
 * I'd say it's safe to say that this could be added in somewhere. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 10:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dimensions
For this craft, and for many of the other Rebellion-era craft, the only dimension given is the Length. Do we know the width or height/depth of any of these craft? (I'm asking because I'm trying to stat them in GURPS, and accurate LWH figures would help estimate the mass, from which I can figure out how much damage it is able to withstand in game mechanics.)
 * If the width and height were know, they'd probably be in the article already. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The stated length of over 9m for this craft is plainly incorrect, as easily demonstrated by this screen shot showing the x1 next to regular TIEs: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/books/weg/trenchtie.jpg The 6.33m quoted in the Star Wars Technical Commentaries is far more accurate.

Darth Vader Creator?
I thought Darth Vader created this craft is there anything saying he didnt?
 * Sienar Fleet Systems created the craft. Darth Vader had put the order in for it. Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader makes this pretty clear. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)