HOME | DD
jollyjack β Abrams Engineering
#abrams #awakens #force #star #wars #xwing
Published: 2015-04-17 16:22:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 87983; Favourites: 1887; Downloads: 743
Redirect to original
Description
I generally don't mind redesigns when there is a clear reason for it (example: ED209 in the new Robocop was developed as a military machine, rather than for domestic policing, so it was made to look more like a tank) but when stuff is overhauled just for the sake of it, throwing logic out the window along the way, it becomes irritating. Like when something that is clearly meant to be a turbine splits down the middle.I'm going to reinforce that last bit for people leaping to the design's defence: film is a VISUAL MEDIUM. If something LOOKS like a turbine, IT'S A F**KING TURBINE.
Related content
Comments: 844
Nope, that didn't help at all. It's still stupid.
And the "splitters" were not off centre as they work as a structural supports for the central shaft of the said turbines. They didn't split the whole turbine along it's length but only hold the front of the rotor.
π: 0 β©: 0
You must've not seen the original trilogy because the designs are EXACTLY like the ones in the trailers.... Who knew!?
π: 0 β©: 1
Would you be so kind and provide us, plebeians, with visual reference in form of pictographic stills or motion pictures?
π: 0 β©: 2
God damnit... Had to do a double take. Well shit... He really did-dun-fucked them X-wings up.
π: 0 β©: 0
i0.wp.com/makingstarwars.net/w⦠literally 2 minutes of google search. Pic in the background is the original 1970s concept art.
π: 0 β©: 0
haha insert slow clap here. LOVE your freaking work man highest of thumbs up!!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
I think the design of the X-Wing in the 7th Episode Teaser looks EXACTLY like all the X-Wing designs showcased in the Original Trilogy. I might be wrong, but the designs look pretty spot on. So my only question is WHY this is being criticized? If you're an engineer or know the mechanics of how spacecraft to aircraft that come close to this design, then I can understand why someone would be grumbling about the visual effect. But as a viewer, why be upset by THIS look when in previous films and many other iterations of visual medium material have done things like this before?
It's jabs like this make it PAINFULLY obvious that I live in a generation where everyone will bitch and moan over the slightest difference in how a stormtrooper's armor looks "bad", the title caption for "The Force Awakens" doesn't look "good enough, or the new saber design looks unconventional or stupid. They call it a Sci-Fi for a reason, so please suspend your disbelief for at least the enjoyment of the film, not how everything has to be tied down to the laws of physics and mechanical convention designs.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Agreed "visual medium." Β No matter what it really is, until and unless you define it, it is what it looks like, and should act like what it looks like.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed. You can't just assume your audience won't make assumptions like that. If you make a flying vehicle with things that clearly resemble turbines on the wings, then people will assume they're turbines like on our airplanes. This is not their fault at all, if the creator didn't want people to believe their turbines then he should've chosen a better design that wouldn't be clearly relatable to our non-sci-fi everyday objects or, as you said, clearly define what it is at some other point.
π: 0 β©: 1
Or, put it in the script early enough. Β "Earl, make sure you energize the Farquahrson Reverse-Osmosis Reactor chambers ... BOTH units on the port wing this time, please!" Β Or something similar.
Ah, well ... this would involve common sense and foresight. Β Both commodities which seem to be severely lacking in the screenwriting community.
π: 0 β©: 2
Um, the thing that set Star Wars apart from Star Trek was a noticeable lack of technobabble. Given the visual media argument, any body in the audience would realize a turbine is useless in space. Not to mention that the "new" design is based on the original Ralph McQuarrie concept art.
π: 0 β©: 1
Star Wars had/has its share of technobabble (although, agreed, FAR less than Trek). Β However, the analytically-inclined movie-goer is not as prevalent as a lot of people think. Β I, for one - a dedicated science type, NASA follower, and space-happy-since-my-puppyhood, saw the original Star Wars three times before some of the technical issues sunk in. Β (I watched it a total of seven times before the movie theater I was attending doubled the admission fees.)
I'm still of the opinion that most viewers need to be led by the hand when encountering a new universe, species or technology ... at least at first.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yeah exactly, great example. Even if it's just technobbable, at least they clearly define what it's NOT so people can't make the same mistake.
It's not like it would cost too much time either. One line like the one you wrote now is more then enough to fix this type of stuff.
π: 0 β©: 0
If I remember correctly, they did that in the original trilogy too.
π: 0 β©: 1
When will people learn to take the one second to check their statements before making them?
No they didn't, they had 4 turbines instead. You could've known this in 2 seconds with 1 Google search.
What the hell is up with all you people trying to correct others without making a single effort to be right yourselves? You already said "IF I remember correctly", why didn't you bother to look it up before commenting and being wrong? You could've prevented this.
You people are everywhere. It's tiring as fuck.
π: 0 β©: 2
Well someone isn't having a good day it seems.
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed. But now you can change that! The 'let's have Fanmar have a day without stupidity' Kickstarter is going live in 10 minutes!
Give me your money and help me help you help everybody allthetimeparentalsupervisionisadvised18+nohomo.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'll defend the tri-saber but there is no way I'd defend this. Β From what I learnt from my uncle in terms of function/design all the things he told me would not work are just blaring in my mind.
π: 0 β©: 0
The X-wing engines aren't turbines. They don't breathe air. Else they wouldn't work in space, where there is no air.
π: 0 β©: 1
First off, just because something has turbines doesn't mean it can't work in space. It's clear the X-wing has more means to accelerate itself.
Second, the X-wing is very often used in atmospheric conditions where there is air and turbines would by mighty useful to keep control of a craft that at other times flies through space.
Third, if you'd make a quick google search you'd find quotes of x-wing pilots actually mentioning their 'turbines breaking down' at some point, reinforcing this idea.
So it would be easy to conclude the turbine-looking things are actual turbines. This was a public service announcement. Have a nice day.
π: 0 β©: 0
And the Star Wars series begins to tank in logic.
π: 0 β©: 0
It could be like a radiator now - or a Bussard ramjet...
Then again, it could be powered by hamsters channeling the force inside their hamster wheels...
π: 0 β©: 0
Few people understand the importance and impact of the "if it looks like a duck..." principle.
π: 0 β©: 0
I do not believe it is Ralph McQuarrie's original design that they are using, but rather starwars.wikia.com/wiki/XJ5_X-β¦ or starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-65XJβ¦
as the X-wing was upgraded visually and tech wise during that Star Wars period.Β You can see in both trailers that there are still 4 engines in the rear of the X-wing.Β
That said, I still had a good laugh at the picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
*technical argument trying to justify a hilarious point*
Oh, no, wait, I came here to be amused and was delightedly pleased.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it's safe to say that the X-Wing's engines don't have rotating parts in it. Maybe it's just a purely aesthetic thing?
π: 0 β©: 0
Turbines? On a spacefighter? Are you sure about that?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well...it does have atmospheric flight capabilities, so one can assume they get used at least sometimes.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think they just return to original concept XP
i1.wp.com/geekdad.com/wp-conteβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
LOL Thank you! I knew the X-Wings of #7 look like the original. Yeah, this makes the bitching about the design even more stupid.Β
Jolly, if you didn't like how things looked back then, why are you taking the time to troll everyone NOW? Give Abrams a break, you dummy, he's following Canon as far as how spacecraft looked by the series.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
That is a bit distracting, now that you mention it.Β On the other hand, turbine engines are infamous for their mediocre performance in the thin interstellar medium of sparse Hydrogen.Β Turns out the engines in question, while they look like turbines, are actually "fusial thrust" engines.Β I expect they run on 'scalardynamically ducted isoquantum phased plasma' or some such.
π: 0 β©: 0
turbines that function with air passing through have little to no effect in space flight.
on the same page, an aerodynamic shape will be meaningless on a shuttle that is not supposed to travel in the atmosphere
i`m obviously not a specialist, but rather than a jet turbine, a plasma-y (or light, laser, idk) propulsor was used on this design
π: 0 β©: 0
Pull up the official cross-section on Google for the T-65 X-Wing. No turbines.
Let the nerd rage subside people!
π: 0 β©: 0
You know.. when I first saw them I felt something was off and this finally pointed it out.
π: 0 β©: 0
Its also an incredibly advanced spaceship from a Civilization Type 2 or maybe even 3 on the Kardashev Scale, so i'm gonna assume they can split a turbine down the center if they want to.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
How does it turn in the first place
π: 0 β©: 0
your critic is pretty valid, but man, star wars is the very pinacle of irrealistic designs, scientific errors and disregard for logic in the history of humanity, only challenged by superhero movies and even that is debatable. sooo... i think a turbine cut in a half make more sense than lazer weapons that don't horribly char their victims and have recoil. or worse, spaceships that behave exectally like ships in the ocean.
π: 0 β©: 0
If something on a starship looks like a turbine, but it doesn't function like a turbine, then it isn't a turbine. Not by how we understand it, at least.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's not that annoying, anyway they keep exploding, you don't see them so much on screen
π: 0 β©: 0
...Okay here's a quick question, feel free to answer. Who gives a shit? Its a fucking movie. a sci-fi movie at that. Stop with the pointless nitpicking (or trolling to get a negative response. Not sure on how big the backlash would be since its such a tiny detail)
π: 0 β©: 0
there's only one thing i can say... Fuck Logic, STAR WARS, DAWG lml
π: 0 β©: 0
Gosh, so many haters in the comment section. Cheer up! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you felt that the person who drew this was nitpicking or whatever, it's their own opinion, and you don't have to nipick againt it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are people not allowed to discuss an opinion when it's pesented?
If not, what's the point?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, I'm sorry if I cam across as "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS."
I just meant that try not to be so nitpicky, which is the exact same thing the author was accused of. Bit of irony there.
π: 0 β©: 0
Didn't notice didn't care. If you are really nitpicking on such a small design decision then this, this is just SAD Jack. If you are doing this to start comment wars and revel in the destruction and bile around... then this is just SAD Jack.
π: 0 β©: 0
Question, these things are supposed to mainly operate in space, so why would they need turbines? I thought a turbine was designed to work by passing air through a large fan (motor assisted of course); you wouldn't need a turbine in space, so maybe it's something more like a ram-scoop? (Not sure if ram-scoop it the correct term, but something to scoop matter and convert it into fuel as in what they use in StarTrek technobabble). Β Thanks
π: 0 β©: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>