Ebon Hawk Crew vs The Normady Crew.

[Guest force_echo]

About the only thing I can think of besides your constant "3d thrusts!" is when the Normandy excetures a 180 degree turn almost on a dime during the Battle of the Citadel. Why this maneuver is never repeated is beyond me (maybe it's an extremely hard maneuver, given Joker also says "That thing just pulled a turn that would shear any of our ships in half!" during the Virmire mission, after meeting Sovereign). The Ebon Hawk can execute u turns easily too. At :17.

 

 

 

And yet the gunners hit smaller targets all the time when they engage the Sith fighters.

 

 

 

Yes they do. They aren't given for the Ebon Hawk, not that it matters anyway. The range doesn't matter, only the ability to reliably hit targets at that range.

 

 

 

This has to do with what? That only matters at FTL speeds (in which case the Ebon Hawk is faster anyway, given that hyperdrive is way faster than mass effect FTL drives). What matters in this is wether or not the Ebon Hawk or Normandy is faster at STL.

The 3d thrust vectoring is especially clear during the beginning of Mass Effect 2, in which the damaged ship's engine nozzles can be seen rotating and firing erratically.

 

Fair enough, but the Normandy still has more firepower.

 

What do you mean the range doesn't matter? You don't know what range this fight is going to happening over. If its happening over a few thousand kilometers, Normandy has two advantages: A) the ability to actually detect the Hawk using radar (something the Hawk doesn't have), and Normandy's weapons don't have a max range.

 

Umm, FTL flight for the Normandy is not the same as it is for the Hawk. The Normandy can use its Mass Effect cores to achieve a higher sublight speed because it drops into singularities generated by the eezo core. Its not like a hyperdrive where it can only go FTL. Besides, the Hawk only has ion thrusters, the Normandy has antiproton thrusters.

[Guest Ruinus]

The 3d thrust vectoring is especially clear during the beginning of Mass Effect 2, in which the damaged ship's engine nozzles can be seen rotating and firing erratically.

 

Fair enough, but the Normandy still has more firepower.

 

Yes, that shows that it has thrusters, that doesn't actually show that the thrusters on the Normandy are better than those on the Ebon Hawk]. (BTW, how do you think the EH moves if it doesn't have thrusters to change course?)

 

Since I have no clue about the EHs firepower, I'll say sure.

 

What do you mean the range doesn't matter? You don't know what range this fight is going to happening over. If its happening over a few thousand kilometers, Normandy has two advantages: A) the ability to actually detect the Hawk using radar (something the Hawk doesn't have), and Normandy's weapons don't have a max range.

 

You do know that the EH has sensors though right? That they don't use old fashioned radar in SW doesn't mean ships are flying around blind without any way to pick up other ships. Seriously.

 

And range doesn't matter because if the SSV Normandy picks up the EH from, say, 10,000 km doesn't mean it will be able to fire and hit at that range. Only the effective range of the targeting computers being able to predict the EHs movement will allow it to hit at any range, otherwise the EH (or any ship) can simply move out of the path of the kinetic round.

 

Umm, FTL flight for the Normandy is not the same as it is for the Hawk. The Normandy can use its Mass Effect cores to achieve a higher sublight speed because it drops into singularities generated by the eezo core. Its not like a hyperdrive where it can only go FTL. Besides, the Hawk only has ion thrusters, the Normandy has antiproton thrusters.

 

Ok see, you are just saying things from the Codex without actually thinking about it. So here's how to solve this:

 

At what speed does the SSV Normandy move when it's not in FTL? How fast does it accelerate? Saying "it falls into black holes!" doesn't solve anything at all.

 

You said the Normandy is faster than the Ebon Hawk. Ok. Show this. Compare their acceleration.

 

The part about the Ebon Hawk having ion thrusters and the Normandy having anti-proton drives doesn't solve anything either, since you are assuming one sounds cooler so it must therefore be faster. Have you ever thought that, perhaps the ion drives are advanced enough to be faster than antiproton drives in Star Wars?

[Guest force_echo]

Yes, that shows that it has thrusters, that doesn't actually show that the thrusters on the Normandy are better than those on the Ebon Hawk]. (BTW, how do you think the EH moves if it doesn't have thrusters to change course?)

 

Since I have no clue about the EHs firepower, I'll say sure.

 

 

 

You do know that the EH has sensors though right? That they don't use old fashioned radar in SW doesn't mean ships are flying around blind without any way to pick up other ships. Seriously.

 

And range doesn't matter because if the SSV Normandy picks up the EH from, say, 10,000 km doesn't mean it will be able to fire and hit at that range. Only the effective range of the targeting computers being able to predict the EHs movement will allow it to hit at any range, otherwise the EH (or any ship) can simply move out of the path of the kinetic round.

 

 

 

Ok see, you are just saying things from the Codex without actually thinking about it. So here's how to solve this:

 

At what speed does the SSV Normandy move when it's not in FTL? How fast does it accelerate? Saying "it falls into black holes!" doesn't solve anything at all.

 

You said the Normandy is faster than the Ebon Hawk. Ok. Show this. Compare their acceleration.

 

The part about the Ebon Hawk having ion thrusters and the Normandy having anti-proton drives doesn't solve anything either, since you are assuming one sounds cooler so it must therefore be faster. Have you ever thought that, perhaps the ion drives are advanced enough to be faster than antiproton drives in Star Wars?

What are you talking about? I'm not saying the Hawk doesn't have maneuvering thrusters, I'm just saying the Normandy's are better. The thrusters on the Ebon Hawk don't vector at all, they're just two holes in the back of the ship.

 

Then what do they use? How do they pick up other ships? Also, I think you're underestimating the speed of a mass accelerator round, its not like they're actually going to see the round heading towards them and be like, "Oh hey, let me dodge it." and move out of the way before it hits them. I don't think in any of the cut scenes the thrust of the Hawk has been shown to move at all.

 

At what speed does the Hawk move when it's not in FTL? How fast does it accelerate?

 

It doesn't give the Normandy's top speed. I'm trying to illustrate how the Normandy can move using its Tantalus Core without going FTL. It can move into singularities genertated by the core, making it even faster than it would be with the antimatter drive.

 

Yes it does solve alot, Antimatter reactions are many, many, MANY times more energetic than the fusion reactions that ion drives employ. Therefore, an antiproton drive, COMBINED with the SSV Normandy's Tantalus Core, should be faster than the fusion drive that the Hawk has. Unless you have proof that SW ships use some kind of mystical awesomesauce that fuses to produce supa dupa power.

[Guest Ruinus]

What are you talking about? I'm not saying the Hawk doesn't have maneuvering thrusters, I'm just saying the Normandy's are better. The thrusters on the Ebon Hawk don't vector at all, they're just two holes in the back of the ship.

 

Then what do they use? How do they pick up other ships? Also, I think you're underestimating the speed of a mass accelerator round, its not like they're actually going to see the round heading towards them and be like, "Oh hey, let me dodge it." and move out of the way before it hits them. I don't think in any of the cut scenes the thrust of the Hawk has been shown to move at all.

 

Star Wars ships use something called an etheric rudder to maneuver in space. That the ships can aim their thrust of engines should be pretty obvious to anyone who can look at their ships move in space and think about "How do those things turn? There's no possible way an ISD can move it if doesn't have maneuvering thrusters or can't directly channel it's engine thrust in some manner to different directions besides backwards".

 

Book preview:

"Even as the Jade Sabre came to a sudden halt, nose turned starboard, Jaina

pumped it out to full throttle and kicked the rudder back to the left, then hard

right, fishtailing the ship about in a abrutal one-eighty, then working the

rudder hard and somewhat choppy in straigthening out her direction."

 

And in Star Wars they just call their sensors... sensors. No indication is given as to what they actually are (radar or sonar or whatever). At least as far as I know.

 

Same preview as previous link:

"Even as she spoke, though, two more blips appeared on the sensors, sstreaking out from the shadows around Rhommamool, angling right in line with the Jade Sabre.

 

And no, I'm not. I'm not saying the Ebon Hawk will be dancing round kinetic rounds, I'm saying that the Normandy can't engage targets at long range if said target can simply move a few meters in any direction and its rounds will miss by several hundred or thousand.

 

At what speed does the Hawk move when it's not in FTL? How fast does it accelerate?

 

It doesn't give the Normandy's top speed. I'm trying to illustrate how the Normandy can move using its Tantalus Core without going FTL. It can move into singularities genertated by the core, making it even faster than it would be with the antimatter drive.

 

I don't know it's top acceleration, just like you don't know the Normandy's top acceleration. Hence why I asked you in the first place how you could possibly compare which one is faster.

 

I know how the Normandy moves, I've played both games and thought the Codex was pretty sweet. However it's method of propulsion doesn't tell us jack shit about its acceleration.

 

Yes it does solve alot, Antimatter reactions are many, many, MANY times more energetic than the fusion reactions that ion drives employ. Therefore, an antiproton drive, COMBINED with the SSV Normandy's Tantalus Core, should be faster than the fusion drive that the Hawk has. Unless you have proof that SW ships use some kind of mystical awesomesauce that fuses to produce supa dupa power.

 

What does the above statement prove? Nothing. It's based on "Oh, this sounds cooler/should be faster" but doesn't actually give any sort of number or figure. You can't look at the Normandy and say "well it should be faster because it has AM and a gravity drive" because I could just as easily say that the Ebon Hawk is faster because "it comes from a more advanced galaxy."

 

BTW, they do have stuff better than anti-matter fusion. It's called hypermatter.

[Guest force_echo]

Star Wars ships use something called an etheric rudder to maneuver in space. That the ships can aim their thrust of engines should be pretty obvious to anyone who can look at their ships move in space and think about "How do those things turn? There's no possible way an ISD can move it if doesn't have maneuvering thrusters or can't directly channel it's engine thrust in some manner to different directions besides backwards".

 

Book preview:

"Even as the Jade Sabre came to a sudden halt, nose turned starboard, Jaina

pumped it out to full throttle and kicked the rudder back to the left, then hard

right, fishtailing the ship about in a abrutal one-eighty, then working the

rudder hard and somewhat choppy in straigthening out her direction."

 

And in Star Wars they just call their sensors... sensors. No indication is given as to what they actually are (radar or sonar or whatever). At least as far as I know.

 

Same preview as previous link:

"Even as she spoke, though, two more blips appeared on the sensors, sstreaking out from the shadows around Rhommamool, angling right in line with the Jade Sabre.

 

And no, I'm not. I'm not saying the Ebon Hawk will be dancing round kinetic rounds, I'm saying that the Normandy can't engage targets at long range if said target can simply move a few meters in any direction and its rounds will miss by several hundred or thousand.

 

 

 

I don't know it's top acceleration, just like you don't know the Normandy's top acceleration. Hence why I asked you in the first place how you could possibly compare which one is faster.

 

I know how the Normandy moves, I've played both games and thought the Codex was pretty sweet. However it's method of propulsion doesn't tell us jack shit about its acceleration.

 

 

 

What does the above statement prove? Nothing. It's based on "Oh, this sounds cooler/should be faster" but doesn't actually give any sort of number or figure. You can't look at the Normandy and say "well it should be faster because it has AM and a gravity drive" because I could just as easily say that the Ebon Hawk is faster because "it comes from a more advanced galaxy."

 

BTW, they do have stuff better than anti-matter fusion. It's called hypermatter.

Umm, The Ebon Hawk employed jets when it landed, so I thought it used the same compressed gas jets to maneuver in space. Kind of like our modern spacecraft. I don't see how you can compare how the Jade Sabre works to how the Hawk works when they're over 4,000 years apart in tech development, and completely different ships.

 

Well, how can you make a claim that the Hawk has better sensors when you don't even know what sensors it has?

 

I think the Normandy is faster because, by all indications, it SHOULD be faster. Antimatter drives yield more energy than fusion ones, even without the Tantalus core helping the SSV, which it does. I mean, its not like I'm just making this shit up. It doesn't matter that the Hawk comes from a more advanced galaxy, its safe to assume that fusion there works just like fusion in real life. Also, the first recorded use of hypermatter that I could find was during the Clone Wars. Unless you have something to prove it was used in the Hawk, or at least during the Hawk's time?

[Guest Ruinus]

Umm, The Ebon Hawk employed jets when it landed, so I thought it used the same compressed gas jets to maneuver in space. Kind of like our modern spacecraft. I don't see how you can compare how the Jade Sabre works to how the Hawk works when they're over 4,000 years apart in tech development, and completely different ships.

 

The same etheric rudders are also mentioned on X-wings. BTW about those jets, those are probably just shooting off steam or some sort of gas. There's no reason why the Ebon Hawk would be using steam jets as maneuvering thrusters when repulsor drives are used in atmosphere. Also, the idea that those little jets of steam are what are propelling the Ebon Hawk upwards is ridiculous. Especially given that they are never seen firing when the EH is in space.

 

BTW, you still haven't given any reason to show the Normandy is more maneuverable.

 

Well, how can you make a claim that the Hawk has better sensors when you don't even know what sensors it has?

 

I never made any such claim.

 

I think the Normandy is faster because, by all indications, it SHOULD be faster. Antimatter drives yield more energy than fusion ones, even without the Tantalus core helping the SSV, which it does. I mean, its not like I'm just making this shit up. It doesn't matter that the Hawk comes from a more advanced galaxy, its safe to assume that fusion there works just like fusion in real life. Also, the first recorded use of hypermatter that I could find was during the Clone Wars. Unless you have something to prove it was used in the Hawk, or at least during the Hawk's time?

 

What if the AM drives in Mass Effect only use less than a kg to work, and have only 20% efficiency? The ion drives in Star Wars already accelerate ships to thousands of Gs, so I could easily say that the Ebon Hawk should be faster simply because in Star Wars they've gotten ion drives to work better than AM drives.

 

Either way, I'll still ask you to actually come up with some acceleration figures for the Normandy. This nonsense of "this should be more advanced so it's faster" has to stop especially since you aren't even trying to back up any of this with an actual figure.

 

RE: hypermatter. You mean the only one you found was an entry in a starfighter for the Clone Wars. There's no reason to believe that the SW civilizations have had hyperdrive (and hence, access to hyperspace) for 25,000 years yet only recently stumbled into hypermatter. Several reactors in SW are called by different names yet have properties that don't make sense (ex the TIE fighters have "solar ionization reactors", yet Steele Chronicles says they have matter-to-energy conversion drives. Solar ionization reactors are the names of reactors of ISDs, yet they are hypermatter drives).