I've flown an X-wing and I can assure you they do rock. Without an inertial damping system fluctuations in the Plasma Mag-fields can cause asymmetrical outputs. This is aggravated by these finely tuned engines being maintained in less than ideal conditions, and the power draw from shields creating small spikes in the back EMF and biasing the wave form.
That's exactly what I was going to say! "With internal dampening systems in the Plasma Magnet fields, there can be asymmetrical outputs in the finely tuned engines that were marinated in less than ideal condition, drawing power from shields and spikes created by the back of the EMF and basing the wave from." (Please share with me your wisdom. Or complete jibberish that was merely meant to confuse, I can't tell the two apart at this point.)
"Without an inertial dampening system " But X-Wings _do have_ inertial dampening (inertial compensators), as part of their expanded life support system. Even TIE/LN starfighters do. Although, unlike X-Wings, they do not have a comprehensive life support, inertial dampening is mandatory, as it protects the pilots from very high g-accelerations.
@@atanvardo5730 I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly. You are correct, X-wings do have an inertial dampener, but (a) the field it generates doesn't extend to cover the engines-since in sub light mode they are essentially reaction engines like your primative rockets, and would be rendered useless by inertial dampening,and (b) the system is mostly active when engadging the hyperdrive-wth sub light mode being activated on demand- similar to the g-suit your pilots use. Apologies for any confusion.
@@davejob630 No worries, that's not the kind of thing that asks for apologizes... Everybody fails express themselves properly, and this is not that rare. Sometimes, when I do this, I realize it and get myself corrected soon after. Sometimes I get corrected by a third party. Moreover, for me it was worth that I made that remark, because this led you to bring some information I did'n know of.
Me too. That care with details is so cool... It doesn't really matter if the rocking cockpits have an explanation (I believe they do) or not. The simple fact that this detail was included in the fan film is worth of recognition. Same with the real manveuvers that fighters performed on World War II, which were included in the fan film, just like in the official Star Wars films. I only missed the X-Wing's engines which are seen on the official films when the pilots' faces are shown inside the cockpit.
I thought it was because they entered the Death Star's magnetic field (WTF still, right?). As they lock their s-foils to begin the assault they go from gentle swaying to rough rocking. Regardless, great job and I like the rocking because it gives that sensation of movement. Even BSG, which is supposedly more realistic, has rocking cockpits!
It is possible. Or maybe the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system)... Who knows?
its because the camera is floating steady, if its attached inside the cockpit we would see the background rocking. Its a genius idea by the original team started since Ep IV. it gives more dynamic in-cockpit view rather than the usual cam posittion and angle
This game sounds great! Before all this covid crap, I saw some people at the local hobby shop on 'game day' (My friends and I played DnD 3.5) playing this game, I think. I asked about it and they replied something like this "This is a TIE bomber flown by Howlrunner! And this is an X-wing being flown by Wedge!"
My theory excluding that the directors probobly just wanted to show movement: Maybe the rebel ships in general bob a bit more than say the tie fighters shown chasing them in the trench run and all is because of the nature of their ships: cheapish, sometimes held together by spare parts, and usually undermaintained compared to factions with more cash. This could lead to engines being a bit out of sync or at slightly different powers, or messed up controls/smoothing features which could lead to bobbing or frequent small course corrections.
I split my reply in two. The second is the reply itself. The first (this one) is just to clarify a frequent confusion regarding what the terms "X-Wings" and "TIE fighters" refer to. Skip it at your own risk! There were different starfighter models of both the X-Wing line and the TIE line in use during the Galactic Civil War, respectivelly by the Rebel Alliance (not to mention the Y-Wing line, the A-Wing line,...) and the Empire. The T-65B X-Wing starfighter and the T-65C-A2 X-Wing starfighter are known to have been used by the Rebellion. However, the T-65B (or just T-65) was by far the most employed Rebel starfighter. The T-65C-A2 *probably* had a few improvements in comparison to the T-65B (although they look identical); but, seemingly, there were not many of them operating. The TIE/LN starfighter a.k.a. TIE fighter was the the kind of starfighter used in massive numbers by the Empire. Another well-known model of Imperial starfighter of the TIE series was the TIE/IN interceptor or TIE Interceptor (which was superior to the TIE fighter and was rivalled only by the A-Wing used by the Rebels). But we are talking about the TIE fighter solely, which the guy above referred to as the "common tie fighter".
As that guy above me pointed out, X-Wings are actually more expansive than TIE fighters. This is due to what the starfighters of the TIE series are designed for: They are all about speed and maneuverability. They are faster and more maneuverable than the X-Wings in space (in atmosphere combat, X-Wings have a better performance than TIE fighters). In fact, TIE fighters were the most agile starfighters of their time. In space, the maximum sublight speed of the T-65B and the T-65C-A2 X-Wing is 100 megalight per hour or MGLT, the same maximum speed of the TIE fighter, which, however, has a much greater acceleration due to its Twin Ion Engines ("TIE" is an acronym form). And for the TIE fighter to possess the agility it is known for, it must also be light. So, TIE fighters are built only with the minimum necessary for a starfighter to fly. On the other hand, this result in many disadvantages ir relation to the X-Wings: TIE fighters have a weaker hull, and they even (with the permission of Emperor Sheev Palpatine) lack a deflector shield, making them fragile, almost disposable fighters. Also, a TIE fighter has lesser firepower and fuel storage capacity, and it lacks torpedo launchers, a comprehensive life support system, sensor jammers and a hyperdrive system (which allows the X-Wings to travel at the speed of light or maybe faster through pre-programmed jumps in the hyperspace), and they cannot make use of astromech droids. All those cut-offs not only reduce significantly the TIE fighter's weight, but also its cost, so that TIE fighters can be mass produced. Although TIE fighters are obviously destroyed much more often than X-Wings, they are replaced as much as they are destroyed. Thus, it is logical that X-Wings usually operate for a much longer time, and, not surprisingly, they look rather worn while TIE fighters always look brand new.
The temperature lasers of the TIE fighters are potent; but the X-Wings are even more hard-hitting. Besides, the TIE fithter is fragile: Unlike the X-Wing, it doesn't have a deflector shield, and its hull is not as strong as the X-Wing's. But I think it is more likely that the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system). If this is correct, the cockpit of the TIE fighters must rock, too (even though TIE fighters do not have a comprehensive life support as X-Wings do, inertial compensators are mandatory). And in case the cockpits of TIE fighters don't rock, I still have an explanation: The TIE fighter is made to be light and agile (so that it has a greater avarage speed and is more maneuverable in space combat), what also makes it much cheaper (so that it can be mass produced). The result is a much more agile, but a fragile, almost disposable starfighter, with flaws that can be exploited. On the other hand, the X-Wing was designed as a well-rounded combat machine and an all-purpose starfighter which can also be employed in long missions (unlike the TIE fighter). Thus, X-Wings usually operate for a considerable longer time and are used in more battles if compared to TIE fighters, which are destroyed more often. This may be the reason why the cockpits of X-Wings shake (again, supposing the cockpits of TIE fighters don't), and may also explain why X-Wings usually look worn while TIE fighters always look brand new.
@@atanvardo5730 Wow, a reply to my two year old comment. No problems though man, that's fine. Anyway, you're challenging even my knowledge of Star Wars space combat with that word wall of a post (Again, just teasin' ya a little, my reply will be a word wall too!) I agree completely that a weaker hull and lack of shields made the TIE fights (especially the TIE/LN) prone to getting blown the hell up more often. I'm wondering where you found the information that the TIE/LN was faster and more maneuverable than the T-65B's.. I thought they were pretty much on par as far as speed, with the TIE/LN being a bit more maneuverable than the T-65B. And I thought the TIE/LN fighter with its Ls-1 hit a bit harder...per laser cannon, only having two. The T-65B has up to 6 six torpedoes and four cannons, but I'm not sure the cannons hit with the same 'punch', but with double the laser cannons and the torpedoes, the T-65B had more damage potential in the end. Again, I'd like to know where you got the the info that the TIE/LN has lasers that are less strong than the T-65B As far as far as the 'shaking' of the rebel pilot's fighters...if any type of internal compensators made the fighter shake that bad, it would be worse than pointless, it would endanger the pilots who'd want to fly their own fighters in a situation like this. There, did I out-Star Wars you? =D I'd like to say we are friends though 'cause we both know way too much about Star Wars, lol =)
@@cassuttustshirt4949 That was quite a wall of a post, too, my friend! Quite expected. Many times this can’t be avoided when the subject is complex and involves several different points. In this post I tried to explain things more properly, so it rendered bigger than the previous. I hope this doesn't discourage you. I split it in three. Well, the names _TIE fighter_ and _TIE/LN starfighter_ both refer to the same model of the TIE line, the model also known as _TIE/ln space superiority starfighter_ ─ which has the official production name of _Twin Ion Engine "line edition" space superiority starfighter_ as given by the manufacturer: Sienar Fleet Systems ("TIE" is an acronym for Twin Ion Engine and "LN"or "ln" appears to be an acronym for "line"). But people in general use the term "TIE fighter" to refer imprecisely to any model of the TIE series (not their fault, since the nomenclature can be indeed confusing). Likewise, the names _T-65B X-Wing starfighter_ or just _T-65 X-Wing starfighter_ both refer the _T-65B space superiority fighter_ (produced by Incom Corporation). Another model of the X-Wing line used by the Rebel Alliance was the _T-65C-A2 X-Wing starfighter_ or _T-65C-A2 space superiority fighter_ which *I guess* has a few improvements if compared to the T-65B X-Wing (but it didn't came to be nearly as used by the Alliance as was the T-65B). From now on, when I say "X-Wing(s)" I will be referring to both models or just the T-65B (depending on the context), unless I state otherwise.
@@cassuttustshirt4949 It is not without a reason that TIE fighters (and I mean the TIE/LN starfighters) are faster and more maneuverable than X-Wings (which are already fast and highly maneuverable starfighters), because this is what the TIE fighter was specially designed for. In space, the TIE/LN's maximum speed is of 100 MGLT (100 megalight per hour), which is also the maximum sublight speed of a T-65B X-Wing. The difference is, more precisely, on the acceleration: 3700 G of the T-65 X-Wing against 4100 G of the TIE/LN (what, needless to say, increases the average speed of the TIE fighter, and is obviously due to the twin ion engines). There is no info on how much the TIE fighter’s maneuverability is greater than the X-Wing’s (like, 20%?... 30%?... 50%?...); but, combined with the TIE fighter’s acceleration, it is, for sure, greater enough to render a more agile starfighter in space combat (inside an atmosphere, the X-Wing has a better flight performance). And, in order to possess the agility it is known for, the TIE fighter must also be light. So it is built only with the strictly necessary for a starfighter to operate. A TIE fighter boils down to a cockpit with engines and the “wings” (solar panels which feed the twin ion engines). Besides reducing weight to a minimum, this design also reduces the TIE fighter’s cost to less than half of the X-Wing’s, allowing it to be mass produced. On the other hand, the TIE fighter has a series of flaws and disadvantages in comparison to the X-Wing: It has a weaker hull and a lesser fuel storage capacity, it lacks a sensor jammer, a hyperdrive system, torpedo launchers, a comprehensive life support system and even (this with the permission of Sheev Palpatine) a shield generator and shield projectors. Also, it cannot be equipped with an astromech droid. All these informations are found on Wookiepedia. The “X-Wing Miniatures Game” (developed by people who obtained access to official material from Lucas Films) also brings most of the major informations.
@@cassuttustshirt4949 Concerning the power of the laser shots, the double cannons of the TIE/LN starfighter are said to be potent enough to destroy a taylander shuttle with one single shot (what almost certainly means a double shot), but nothing is said about the X-Wing’s laser cannons. Also, no source I know compares the firepower of one individual cannon of the X-Wing with one cannon of the TIE/LN. So we can’t say which cannon has the greater firepower, individually. However, on the X-Wing Miniatures Game, X-Wings are described as "hard-hitting", and the same is not said about the TIE fighter. This may be due (as I believe it is) to the simple fact that an X-Wing has twice the number of cannons of a TIE fighter, but It doesn’t necessarily mean that one cannon of the TIE fighter is more potent than one cannon of the X-Wing (what, by the way, is probably true in my opinion). Although X-Wings are armed with torpedo launchers, seemingly they don't carry proton torpedoes everytime they are sent on a mission; only on certain occasions (like the destruction of the Death Star, for example). So, if the description of "hard-hitting" given to the X-Wing but not to the TIE fighter is a comparison between their firepower, it makes more sense that only the power of the laser cannon ensamble of each fighter is being compared, not including the proton torpedoes the X-Wings can be equipped with. Last, I don't think you out-Star Wars-ed me or vice-versa. I think we are on pairs with each other!
First, the cockpits rocking are a very small issue that doesn't spoil the *high* quality of the film. Second, and most important, it does happen in Episode IV (and very likely in Episode V and Episode VI, too). Maybe the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system)... Who knows?
We couldn’t agree more, but we got so many “there’s no air turbulence in space” comments we felt the need to explain. Thanks for being on our side... the right side!
Hard to say. We originally thought of this as a "one and done" since that is all we really had the resources for. We are, after all, just a couple of guys with full time jobs & families so carving out time for filmmaking gets a little tricky. We put “chapter 1" in the opening crawl as more of a joke than anything else. All that said, recently finalized a script for chapter 2. It goes bigger than chapter 1, so it will take more time to produce, provided we can first raise the funds to get started. Thank you for watching and your interest!
Rogue Shark Pictures keep it up! Loved the fan film. As a life long Star Wars fan and a huge fan of the Rogue Squadron book series this was all right up my alley. If you guys ever start working on EP2 I’ll be looking out.
It's the internet. It's toxic. People will complain and nag endlessly about anything and everything, and they won't stop. You can't win, you can only walk away.
@@Clone42 Nothing wrong with pointing out something people think can be improved upon. It's not much an issue for me minus a sequence or two, one of which was on the Y-wing. And you see from the clips from the movie they mostly don't shake so violently rather just has a bit of a strong sway up until they either: cross the Death Star's magnetic field (whatever that means), or is in the trench which we can associate as a filmmaking thing to simulate air turbulence which we all know doesn't exist in space but adds a bit to the atmosphere and weight they want to portray. Additionally, I believe it does a disservice to the viewing experience since it's very distracting for the viewer being overdone. But, yes, how toxic of me. I can't believe I just discovered the fan film though or I probably saw the link and just passed by it.
It's not much an issue for me minus a sequence or two, one of which was on the Y-wing. And you see from the clips from the movie they mostly don't shake so violently rather just has a bit of a strong sway up until they either: cross the Death Star's magnetic field (whatever that means), or is in the trench which we can associate as a filmmaking thing to simulate air turbulence which we all know doesn't exist in space but adds a bit to the atmosphere and weight they want to portray. Additionally, I believe it does a disservice to the viewing experience since it's very distracting for the viewer being overdone. The keyword is overdo. Also, Renegade but no Commander Narra. >:( I kid. But, yeah, definitely up there in terms of Star Wars fan films. My favorite one in fact. Bonus points that it never goes to a forest reserve. I can't believe I just discovered the fan film though or I probably saw the link before but just skipped by it.
It's been our biggest complaint. Apparently, Star Wars, a franchise about space wizards, is supposed to be scientifically accurate. That was news to us!
In your film it looked to me that the chair was shaking more than the cockpit. In ANH it looks to be all camera movement. Not to rag on you too much, I appreciate the video. I thought it was cool.
First off, you didn't make a fan film, you made a fan video. The thing about making films is: you need film. Second, just because it's in ANH, doesn't make it right. For starters, such a scene had never been created before, so there were bound to be bugs to iron out. As others have mentioned they were flying into the magnetic field or something-something of the Death Star. Alternatively, they may have filmed it that way (with actual film) intending to have a barrage of blaster fire whizzing all around them, but then decided to leave the effect out in post. Either way you spin it, it was something ILM knew needed to be fixed. Lastly, even ROTJ cockpit scenes were significantly less shaky, with gradual prop movements against the background and subtle camera offsets - a result of ILM improving their skills at the time. Perhaps if you had subdued the shaking and reserved the big motions for only when they took blaster fire, then it would have made the audience really understand the impact and the intensity. In conclusion, the fan [video] you made was great, but you missed a chance to improve the over-shaking. On the contrary, you highlighted it, and I'm only commenting because you chose to defend the decision. However, don't stop improving your craft! Keep making these fan flicks! They're still great!
Thanks for the comments, we always welcome constructive feedback. The moving cockpits in ANH (and ours) was to showcase movement & speed; to get the audience to feel as if they were in the cockpit during the dogfights. Realistic portrayal of space flight was never a consideration. Could we have done better with the rocking? Absolutely. We certainly have our own lessons learned and hope to one day improve upon them. But, to be fair, while multi-million dollar motion pictures have the luxury of placing their cockpit sets atop hydraulic rigs, we had an air mattress. We had conducted screen tests with the cockpit still and the camera moving, but not only did that look fake, it didn't look like Star Wars. And we felt that it was important for our movie to look like a Star Wars movie. We put this video (Starship’s a rockin’) together because we had never heard of anyone complaining about the poor representation of astrophysics in space flight in a Star Wars movie before ours. We just wanted to let our viewers know that any complaints should be directed at the source material, not the short emulating the source material. Long story short: Why are the cockpits moving in our movie? Because they moved in Star Wars. That’s all we are trying to get across with this video. Also, we don't buy the "passing through the magnetic field" argument or any other so called "scientific explanations" that excuse the movement in ANH. The last shot is of Luke flying in the vacuum of space, after the Death Star and it's magnetic field had been destroyed, and the cockpit is still moving. And there are plenty of other shots from ANH with moving cockpits before they “pass through the magnetic field.” Any fixes ILM wanted to make was to make the movement better looking, not more realistic. As for the cockpit movement being lessened in ROTJ, maybe a little bit, but not really (ua-cam.com/video/zFeRiJX5dq0/v-deo.html). The perception of less movement probably has more to do with less screen time in the cockpit compared to the Battle of Yavin. But even so, less movement does not equal no movement (which is what our nay-sayers seem to want), so the sin of poorly representing proper astrophysics is the same in ROTJ as it is in ANH. This, again, is because the illusion of movement, speed, and flight are for more important than realism. Realism has no place in Star Wars, but that's okay. It is, after all, a fantasy with sound in space and laser sword wielding space wizards. For us, complaining about how the cockpits should realistically move in Star Wars is like complaining about the flight to weight ratio of Smaug in the Hobbit. If all you’re thinking about is how a 40 ton lizard could possibly fly, maybe the fantasy genre isn’t for you (we don’t mean “you” specifically, Scot, that’s just a “you” in general). Lastly, reserving the term "film" for only movies made with film stock is out of date. Sorry, but that ship sailed at least 15 years ago. Today, like it or not, "film" means "movie." The Wolf of Wall Street was a "Martin Scorsese film" despite being "filmed" with a digital cinema camera (Arri Alexa). Same for the “Steven Spielberg film” Ready Player One, the ”Joss Whedon film" The Avengers & countless others. Even film festivals still say they showcase "films" despite being 99% digital videos. Besides, “fan film” is long standing vernacular that speaks more to genre than format. So, no, you don't need film to make a film. At least not anymore. Again, thanks for the comments & feedback, and at the end of the day we’re glad you enjoyed the movie. Which is the most important thing of all!
I get what you're saying about film being not limited to film. I learned about the difference in the last millennium (1998), and the distinction has stuck with me. It's like chicken fajitas or turkeyburgers... There is no cut of meat below a chicken's belt (faja = belt, -ita = below or smaller), and Turekeyburg was not a city in Germany where they invented grinding turkey meat. Alas, we are stuck with ridiculously careless naming conventions anyway, mostly because people forget or don't understand the source of the meanings. My philosophy has always been to avoid following the crowd when the crowd is wrong, but as you made clear everyone mostly does. But yeah... maybe it's pointless to have even mentioned it, and I retract my nitpicking intentions on that matter. I think you are missing my point about the shaking. I'm not hung up on the lack of realism, as that has been thrown out the window from the very start. Although, there is a line to be drawn somewhere way before flying mystic princess generals in space. Stay on target! What I'm on about is the distracting nature of the motion; it just looks bad. It IS significantly subdued in ROTJ, yes really, although still present. The link you provided does little to help your case. Wedge and his fellow pilots aren't bounced around nearly as much as they were in ANH, although there is still significant sway in the camera. The effect is subdued and a lot less distracting. All this being said, you did a great job of emulating the shaking in the first movie, especially given your tools available. I'm impressed at the air mattress thing. Maybe the shaking and wobbling is just one of those things fans only tolerate about the original movies, but we give them grace because it was groundbreaking at the time. Case and point: I always hated how the X-wing blasters looked like rubber, but I mean c'mon it's a frickin' sweet fighter! People try so hard to make things "screen accurate" - and not just fan flicks but also dioramas and 3D models. I can appreciate the homage sentimentality, but I also feel like there is an opportunity to do better. Personally, I wouldn't want to get fixated on making it look exactly like a late-'70s sci-fi film, but that's just me. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and thorough reply! I hope at least to have provided you some insight.
I've flown an X-wing and I can assure you they do rock. Without an inertial damping system fluctuations in the Plasma Mag-fields can cause asymmetrical outputs. This is aggravated by these finely tuned engines being maintained in less than ideal conditions, and the power draw from shields creating small spikes in the back EMF and biasing the wave form.
Please tell everyone else!
That's exactly what I was going to say!
"With internal dampening systems in the Plasma Magnet fields, there can be asymmetrical outputs in the finely tuned engines that were marinated in less than ideal condition, drawing power from shields and spikes created by the back of the EMF and basing the wave from."
(Please share with me your wisdom. Or complete jibberish that was merely meant to confuse, I can't tell the two apart at this point.)
"Without an inertial dampening system "
But X-Wings _do have_ inertial dampening (inertial compensators), as part of their expanded life support system. Even TIE/LN starfighters do. Although, unlike X-Wings, they do not have a comprehensive life support, inertial dampening is mandatory, as it protects the pilots from very high g-accelerations.
@@atanvardo5730 I'm sorry, I should have explained more clearly. You are correct, X-wings do have an inertial dampener, but (a) the field it generates doesn't extend to cover the engines-since in sub light mode they are essentially reaction engines like your primative rockets, and would be rendered useless by inertial dampening,and (b) the system is mostly active when engadging the hyperdrive-wth sub light mode being activated on demand- similar to the g-suit your pilots use. Apologies for any confusion.
@@davejob630 No worries, that's not the kind of thing that asks for apologizes... Everybody fails express themselves properly, and this is not that rare. Sometimes, when I do this, I realize it and get myself corrected soon after. Sometimes I get corrected by a third party. Moreover, for me it was worth that I made that remark, because this led you to bring some information I did'n know of.
Who cares if they shaking?!?!? That fan short was awesome. You have done STAR WARS proud !!! Loved it. Hope for more !!!
If only everyone thought as you do! Thanks for watching!
@@RogueSharkPictures I liked the shaking, made it feel very Star Wars'ish. I was impressed that you guys added that detail in your film.
Me too. That care with details is so cool... It doesn't really matter if the rocking cockpits have an explanation (I believe they do) or not. The simple fact that this detail was included in the fan film is worth of recognition. Same with the real manveuvers that fighters performed on World War II, which were included in the fan film, just like in the official Star Wars films. I only missed the X-Wing's engines which are seen on the official films when the pilots' faces are shown inside the cockpit.
I thought it was because they entered the Death Star's magnetic field (WTF still, right?). As they lock their s-foils to begin the assault they go from gentle swaying to rough rocking. Regardless, great job and I like the rocking because it gives that sensation of movement. Even BSG, which is supposedly more realistic, has rocking cockpits!
It is possible. Or maybe the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system)... Who knows?
its because the camera is floating steady, if its attached inside the cockpit we would see the background rocking. Its a genius idea by the original team started since Ep IV. it gives more dynamic in-cockpit view rather than the usual cam posittion and angle
This game sounds great! Before all this covid crap, I saw some people at the local hobby shop on 'game day' (My friends and I played DnD 3.5) playing this game, I think. I asked about it and they replied something like this "This is a TIE bomber flown by Howlrunner! And this is an X-wing being flown by Wedge!"
My theory excluding that the directors probobly just wanted to show movement:
Maybe the rebel ships in general bob a bit more than say the tie fighters shown chasing them in the trench run and all is because of the nature of their ships: cheapish, sometimes held together by spare parts, and usually undermaintained compared to factions with more cash. This could lead to engines being a bit out of sync or at slightly different powers, or messed up controls/smoothing features which could lead to bobbing or frequent small course corrections.
This exactly. You don't need turbulence for bobbing. And this is one of those essential ingredients to give it the Star Wars feel.
Actually, each X-Wing was significantly more expensive than the common tie fighter due to its hyperdrive and shielding system.
I split my reply in two. The second is the reply itself. The first (this one) is just to clarify a frequent confusion regarding what the terms "X-Wings" and "TIE fighters" refer to. Skip it at your own risk!
There were different starfighter models of both the X-Wing line and the TIE line in use during the Galactic Civil War, respectivelly by the Rebel Alliance (not to mention the Y-Wing line, the A-Wing line,...) and the Empire. The T-65B X-Wing starfighter and the T-65C-A2 X-Wing starfighter are known to have been used by the Rebellion. However, the T-65B (or just T-65) was by far the most employed Rebel starfighter. The T-65C-A2 *probably* had a few improvements in comparison to the T-65B (although they look identical); but, seemingly, there were not many of them operating. The TIE/LN starfighter a.k.a. TIE fighter was the the kind of starfighter used in massive numbers by the Empire. Another well-known model of Imperial starfighter of the TIE series was the TIE/IN interceptor or TIE Interceptor (which was superior to the TIE fighter and was rivalled only by the A-Wing used by the Rebels). But we are talking about the TIE fighter solely, which the guy above referred to as the "common tie fighter".
As that guy above me pointed out, X-Wings are actually more expansive than TIE fighters. This is due to what the starfighters of the TIE series are designed for: They are all about speed and maneuverability. They are faster and more maneuverable than the X-Wings in space (in atmosphere combat, X-Wings have a better performance than TIE fighters). In fact, TIE fighters were the most agile starfighters of their time. In space, the maximum sublight speed of the T-65B and the T-65C-A2 X-Wing is 100 megalight per hour or MGLT, the same maximum speed of the TIE fighter, which, however, has a much greater acceleration due to its Twin Ion Engines ("TIE" is an acronym form). And for the TIE fighter to possess the agility it is known for, it must also be light. So, TIE fighters are built only with the minimum necessary for a starfighter to fly. On the other hand, this result in many disadvantages ir relation to the X-Wings: TIE fighters have a weaker hull, and they even (with the permission of Emperor Sheev Palpatine) lack a deflector shield, making them fragile, almost disposable fighters. Also, a TIE fighter has lesser firepower and fuel storage capacity, and it lacks torpedo launchers, a comprehensive life support system, sensor jammers and a hyperdrive system (which allows the X-Wings to travel at the speed of light or maybe faster through pre-programmed jumps in the hyperspace), and they cannot make use of astromech droids. All those cut-offs not only reduce significantly the TIE fighter's weight, but also its cost, so that TIE fighters can be mass produced. Although TIE fighters are obviously destroyed much more often than X-Wings, they are replaced as much as they are destroyed. Thus, it is logical that X-Wings usually operate for a much longer time, and, not surprisingly, they look rather worn while TIE fighters always look brand new.
I always figured they were doing at least minor evasive maneuvers so the turbolasers couldn't fry them in one hit.
The temperature lasers of the TIE fighters are potent; but the X-Wings are even more hard-hitting. Besides, the TIE fithter is fragile: Unlike the X-Wing, it doesn't have a deflector shield, and its hull is not as strong as the X-Wing's. But I think it is more likely that the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system). If this is correct, the cockpit of the TIE fighters must rock, too (even though TIE fighters do not have a comprehensive life support as X-Wings do, inertial compensators are mandatory). And in case the cockpits of TIE fighters don't rock, I still have an explanation: The TIE fighter is made to be light and agile (so that it has a greater avarage speed and is more maneuverable in space combat), what also makes it much cheaper (so that it can be mass produced). The result is a much more agile, but a fragile, almost disposable starfighter, with flaws that can be exploited. On the other hand, the X-Wing was designed as a well-rounded combat machine and an all-purpose starfighter which can also be employed in long missions (unlike the TIE fighter). Thus, X-Wings usually operate for a considerable longer time and are used in more battles if compared to TIE fighters, which are destroyed more often. This may be the reason why the cockpits of X-Wings shake (again, supposing the cockpits of TIE fighters don't), and may also explain why X-Wings usually look worn while TIE fighters always look brand new.
@@atanvardo5730 Wow, a reply to my two year old comment. No problems though man, that's fine. Anyway, you're challenging even my knowledge of Star Wars space combat with that word wall of a post (Again, just teasin' ya a little, my reply will be a word wall too!) I agree completely that a weaker hull and lack of shields made the TIE fights (especially the TIE/LN) prone to getting blown the hell up more often. I'm wondering where you found the information that the TIE/LN was faster and more maneuverable than the T-65B's.. I thought they were pretty much on par as far as speed, with the TIE/LN being a bit more maneuverable than the T-65B. And I thought the TIE/LN fighter with its Ls-1 hit a bit harder...per laser cannon, only having two. The T-65B has up to 6 six torpedoes and four cannons, but I'm not sure the cannons hit with the same 'punch', but with double the laser cannons and the torpedoes, the T-65B had more damage potential in the end. Again, I'd like to know where you got the the info that the TIE/LN has lasers that are less strong than the T-65B As far as far as the 'shaking' of the rebel pilot's fighters...if any type of internal compensators made the fighter shake that bad, it would be worse than pointless, it would endanger the pilots who'd want to fly their own fighters in a situation like this. There, did I out-Star Wars you? =D I'd like to say we are friends though 'cause we both know way too much about Star Wars, lol =)
@@cassuttustshirt4949 That was quite a wall of a post, too, my friend! Quite expected. Many times this can’t be avoided when the subject is complex and involves several different points. In this post I tried to explain things more properly, so it rendered bigger than the previous. I hope this doesn't discourage you. I split it in three.
Well, the names _TIE fighter_ and _TIE/LN starfighter_ both refer to the same model of the TIE line, the model also known as _TIE/ln space superiority starfighter_ ─ which has the official production name of _Twin Ion Engine "line edition" space superiority starfighter_ as given by the manufacturer: Sienar Fleet Systems ("TIE" is an acronym for Twin Ion Engine and "LN"or "ln" appears to be an acronym for "line"). But people in general use the term "TIE fighter" to refer imprecisely to any model of the TIE series (not their fault, since the nomenclature can be indeed confusing). Likewise, the names _T-65B X-Wing starfighter_ or just _T-65 X-Wing starfighter_ both refer the _T-65B space superiority fighter_ (produced by Incom Corporation). Another model of the X-Wing line used by the Rebel Alliance was the _T-65C-A2 X-Wing starfighter_ or _T-65C-A2 space superiority fighter_ which *I guess* has a few improvements if compared to the T-65B X-Wing (but it didn't came to be nearly as used by the Alliance as was the T-65B). From now on, when I say "X-Wing(s)" I will be referring to both models or just the T-65B (depending on the context), unless I state otherwise.
@@cassuttustshirt4949 It is not without a reason that TIE fighters (and I mean the TIE/LN starfighters) are faster and more maneuverable than X-Wings (which are already fast and highly maneuverable starfighters), because this is what the TIE fighter was specially designed for. In space, the TIE/LN's maximum speed is of 100 MGLT (100 megalight per hour), which is also the maximum sublight speed of a T-65B X-Wing. The difference is, more precisely, on the acceleration: 3700 G of the T-65 X-Wing against 4100 G of the TIE/LN (what, needless to say, increases the average speed of the TIE fighter, and is obviously due to the twin ion engines). There is no info on how much the TIE fighter’s maneuverability is greater than the X-Wing’s (like, 20%?... 30%?... 50%?...); but, combined with the TIE fighter’s acceleration, it is, for sure, greater enough to render a more agile starfighter in space combat (inside an atmosphere, the X-Wing has a better flight performance). And, in order to possess the agility it is known for, the TIE fighter must also be light. So it is built only with the strictly necessary for a starfighter to operate. A TIE fighter boils down to a cockpit with engines and the “wings” (solar panels which feed the twin ion engines). Besides reducing weight to a minimum, this design also reduces the TIE fighter’s cost to less than half of the X-Wing’s, allowing it to be mass produced. On the other hand, the TIE fighter has a series of flaws and disadvantages in comparison to the X-Wing: It has a weaker hull and a lesser fuel storage capacity, it lacks a sensor jammer, a hyperdrive system, torpedo launchers, a comprehensive life support system and even (this with the permission of Sheev Palpatine) a shield generator and shield projectors. Also, it cannot be equipped with an astromech droid. All these informations are found on Wookiepedia. The “X-Wing Miniatures Game” (developed by people who obtained access to official material from Lucas Films) also brings most of the major informations.
@@cassuttustshirt4949
Concerning the power of the laser shots, the double cannons of the TIE/LN starfighter are said to be potent enough to destroy a taylander shuttle with one single shot (what almost certainly means a double shot), but nothing is said about the X-Wing’s laser cannons. Also, no source I know compares the firepower of one individual cannon of the X-Wing with one cannon of the TIE/LN. So we can’t say which cannon has the greater firepower, individually. However, on the X-Wing Miniatures Game, X-Wings are described as "hard-hitting", and the same is not said about the TIE fighter. This may be due (as I believe it is) to the simple fact that an X-Wing has twice the number of cannons of a TIE fighter, but It doesn’t necessarily mean that one cannon of the TIE fighter is more potent than one cannon of the X-Wing (what, by the way, is probably true in my opinion). Although X-Wings are armed with torpedo launchers, seemingly they don't carry proton torpedoes everytime they are sent on a mission; only on certain occasions (like the destruction of the Death Star, for example). So, if the description of "hard-hitting" given to the X-Wing but not to the TIE fighter is a comparison between their firepower, it makes more sense that only the power of the laser cannon ensamble of each fighter is being compared, not including the proton torpedoes the X-Wings can be equipped with.
Last, I don't think you out-Star Wars-ed me or vice-versa. I think we are on pairs with each other!
they are CLOSE to a gravity field, such as a planet or SPACE STATION, but yeah they always did that, regardless. based on old WW2 dogfights in film!
First, the cockpits rocking are a very small issue that doesn't spoil the *high* quality of the film. Second, and most important, it does happen in Episode IV (and very likely in Episode V and Episode VI, too). Maybe the rocking cockpits result from the inertial compensators functioning (they are part of the X-Wing's life support system)... Who knows?
Just keep making great fan films and show up those lunatics at Disney.
It's quite simple. No one scrutinizes the holy cow that well. :-)
I at first thought this was referencing to lascivious things.
It's such a minor thing why do people care?It was a great fan film why fuss over a small detail?
We couldn’t agree more, but we got so many “there’s no air turbulence in space” comments we felt the need to explain. Thanks for being on our side... the right side!
It's not minor when your in the cockpit trying for a deflection shot on a Tie Fighter!
I thought Kara's performance was rockin' !
We did too!
It's for dramatic effect, duh.
Our thoughts exactly. 😉
That and the BGM, too.
No inertial dampers in snubfighters.
Wrong physics, but more interesting :) Never noticed in the original movies, though. Please don’t overdo.
Any idea of when chapter 2 will come out?
Hard to say. We originally thought of this as a "one and done" since that is all we really had the resources for. We are, after all, just a couple of guys with full time jobs & families so carving out time for filmmaking gets a little tricky. We put “chapter 1" in the opening crawl as more of a joke than anything else. All that said, recently finalized a script for chapter 2. It goes bigger than chapter 1, so it will take more time to produce, provided we can first raise the funds to get started. Thank you for watching and your interest!
@@RogueSharkPictures okay thank you!
Rogue Shark Pictures keep it up! Loved the fan film. As a life long Star Wars fan and a huge fan of the Rogue Squadron book series this was all right up my alley. If you guys ever start working on EP2 I’ll be looking out.
Why would they even question lol
We wondered the same thing.
It's the internet. It's toxic. People will complain and nag endlessly about anything and everything, and they won't stop. You can't win, you can only walk away.
@@Clone42 Nothing wrong with pointing out something people think can be improved upon.
It's not much an issue for me minus a sequence or two, one of which was on the Y-wing. And you see from the clips from the movie they mostly don't shake so violently rather just has a bit of a strong sway up until they either: cross the Death Star's magnetic field (whatever that means), or is in the trench which we can associate as a filmmaking thing to simulate air turbulence which we all know doesn't exist in space but adds a bit to the atmosphere and weight they want to portray. Additionally, I believe it does a disservice to the viewing experience since it's very distracting for the viewer being overdone.
But, yes, how toxic of me.
I can't believe I just discovered the fan film though or I probably saw the link and just passed by it.
It's not much an issue for me minus a sequence or two, one of which was on the Y-wing. And you see from the clips from the movie they mostly don't shake so violently rather just has a bit of a strong sway up until they either: cross the Death Star's magnetic field (whatever that means), or is in the trench which we can associate as a filmmaking thing to simulate air turbulence which we all know doesn't exist in space but adds a bit to the atmosphere and weight they want to portray. Additionally, I believe it does a disservice to the viewing experience since it's very distracting for the viewer being overdone.
The keyword is overdo.
Also, Renegade but no Commander Narra. >:(
I kid.
But, yeah, definitely up there in terms of Star Wars fan films. My favorite one in fact. Bonus points that it never goes to a forest reserve. I can't believe I just discovered the fan film though or I probably saw the link before but just skipped by it.
People complained? A pox on them I say!
It's been our biggest complaint. Apparently, Star Wars, a franchise about space wizards, is supposed to be scientifically accurate. That was news to us!
Rogue Shark Pictures I liked that they shook. It made the action more intense.
lol. Yep. Its funny the physics dont make sense. No atmosphere in space, no air, no turbulence.Shouldnt be shaking.idk
Well if you can accept space wizards....
Sooo...Rule of Cool?
In your film it looked to me that the chair was shaking more than the cockpit. In ANH it looks to be all camera movement. Not to rag on you too much, I appreciate the video. I thought it was cool.
First off, you didn't make a fan film, you made a fan video. The thing about making films is: you need film.
Second, just because it's in ANH, doesn't make it right. For starters, such a scene had never been created before, so there were bound to be bugs to iron out. As others have mentioned they were flying into the magnetic field or something-something of the Death Star. Alternatively, they may have filmed it that way (with actual film) intending to have a barrage of blaster fire whizzing all around them, but then decided to leave the effect out in post. Either way you spin it, it was something ILM knew needed to be fixed.
Lastly, even ROTJ cockpit scenes were significantly less shaky, with gradual prop movements against the background and subtle camera offsets - a result of ILM improving their skills at the time. Perhaps if you had subdued the shaking and reserved the big motions for only when they took blaster fire, then it would have made the audience really understand the impact and the intensity.
In conclusion, the fan [video] you made was great, but you missed a chance to improve the over-shaking. On the contrary, you highlighted it, and I'm only commenting because you chose to defend the decision. However, don't stop improving your craft! Keep making these fan flicks! They're still great!
Thanks for the comments, we always welcome constructive feedback. The moving cockpits in ANH (and ours) was to showcase movement & speed; to get the audience to feel as if they were in the cockpit during the dogfights. Realistic portrayal of space flight was never a consideration. Could we have done better with the rocking? Absolutely. We certainly have our own lessons learned and hope to one day improve upon them. But, to be fair, while multi-million dollar motion pictures have the luxury of placing their cockpit sets atop hydraulic rigs, we had an air mattress. We had conducted screen tests with the cockpit still and the camera moving, but not only did that look fake, it didn't look like Star Wars. And we felt that it was important for our movie to look like a Star Wars movie. We put this video (Starship’s a rockin’) together because we had never heard of anyone complaining about the poor representation of astrophysics in space flight in a Star Wars movie before ours. We just wanted to let our viewers know that any complaints should be directed at the source material, not the short emulating the source material.
Long story short: Why are the cockpits moving in our movie? Because they moved in Star Wars. That’s all we are trying to get across with this video.
Also, we don't buy the "passing through the magnetic field" argument or any other so called "scientific explanations" that excuse the movement in ANH. The last shot is of Luke flying in the vacuum of space, after the Death Star and it's magnetic field had been destroyed, and the cockpit is still moving. And there are plenty of other shots from ANH with moving cockpits before they “pass through the magnetic field.” Any fixes ILM wanted to make was to make the movement better looking, not more realistic. As for the cockpit movement being lessened in ROTJ, maybe a little bit, but not really (ua-cam.com/video/zFeRiJX5dq0/v-deo.html). The perception of less movement probably has more to do with less screen time in the cockpit compared to the Battle of Yavin. But even so, less movement does not equal no movement (which is what our nay-sayers seem to want), so the sin of poorly representing proper astrophysics is the same in ROTJ as it is in ANH. This, again, is because the illusion of movement, speed, and flight are for more important than realism. Realism has no place in Star Wars, but that's okay. It is, after all, a fantasy with sound in space and laser sword wielding space wizards.
For us, complaining about how the cockpits should realistically move in Star Wars is like complaining about the flight to weight ratio of Smaug in the Hobbit. If all you’re thinking about is how a 40 ton lizard could possibly fly, maybe the fantasy genre isn’t for you (we don’t mean “you” specifically, Scot, that’s just a “you” in general).
Lastly, reserving the term "film" for only movies made with film stock is out of date. Sorry, but that ship sailed at least 15 years ago. Today, like it or not, "film" means "movie." The Wolf of Wall Street was a "Martin Scorsese film" despite being "filmed" with a digital cinema camera (Arri Alexa). Same for the “Steven Spielberg film” Ready Player One, the ”Joss Whedon film" The Avengers & countless others. Even film festivals still say they showcase "films" despite being 99% digital videos. Besides, “fan film” is long standing vernacular that speaks more to genre than format. So, no, you don't need film to make a film. At least not anymore.
Again, thanks for the comments & feedback, and at the end of the day we’re glad you enjoyed the movie. Which is the most important thing of all!
I get what you're saying about film being not limited to film. I learned about the difference in the last millennium (1998), and the distinction has stuck with me. It's like chicken fajitas or turkeyburgers... There is no cut of meat below a chicken's belt (faja = belt, -ita = below or smaller), and Turekeyburg was not a city in Germany where they invented grinding turkey meat. Alas, we are stuck with ridiculously careless naming conventions anyway, mostly because people forget or don't understand the source of the meanings. My philosophy has always been to avoid following the crowd when the crowd is wrong, but as you made clear everyone mostly does. But yeah... maybe it's pointless to have even mentioned it, and I retract my nitpicking intentions on that matter.
I think you are missing my point about the shaking. I'm not hung up on the lack of realism, as that has been thrown out the window from the very start. Although, there is a line to be drawn somewhere way before flying mystic princess generals in space. Stay on target! What I'm on about is the distracting nature of the motion; it just looks bad. It IS significantly subdued in ROTJ, yes really, although still present. The link you provided does little to help your case. Wedge and his fellow pilots aren't bounced around nearly as much as they were in ANH, although there is still significant sway in the camera. The effect is subdued and a lot less distracting.
All this being said, you did a great job of emulating the shaking in the first movie, especially given your tools available. I'm impressed at the air mattress thing. Maybe the shaking and wobbling is just one of those things fans only tolerate about the original movies, but we give them grace because it was groundbreaking at the time. Case and point: I always hated how the X-wing blasters looked like rubber, but I mean c'mon it's a frickin' sweet fighter! People try so hard to make things "screen accurate" - and not just fan flicks but also dioramas and 3D models. I can appreciate the homage sentimentality, but I also feel like there is an opportunity to do better. Personally, I wouldn't want to get fixated on making it look exactly like a late-'70s sci-fi film, but that's just me.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful and thorough reply! I hope at least to have provided you some insight.
Of course! We like the back & forth & we appreciate your insight!