Disney's Star Wars blaster speed

[Jason_Courne]

Couldn't make up my mind if this was a CRT or a calc-discussion thread, probably the former.

The current Disney Blaster speed come from The Mythbuster's own calculation at 130 miles per hour, however there have been a few calculations that grant higher

• AT-TE cannon speed: Mach 6.516 (This calc is already applied to the AT-ET / AT-AT page, but uses a screenshot of the original Narutoforms calc)
• Battlefront 2 remake blaster speed: Mach 1.95 (Battlefront II is considered canon to the Disney-verse, and abilities from the game are accepted on profiles)

 

[Jason_Courne]

Afaik this only really affects a handful of characters, namely the Clones and whoever scales to them

 

[Hypertornado099]

Are these really enough to upgrade them? The speed at which blaster bolts move varies depending on the type of media. In the original trilogy they were subsonic

 

[Jason_Courne]

Are these really enough to upgrade them? The speed at which blaster bolts move varies depending on the type of media. In the original trilogy they were subsonic

Yeah but that can be heavily considered due to technological restrictions of a(n older) live action media.

 

[Random-Helper323]

It seems as if AT-ET's might have larger blasters that can shoot at a higher speed. Real life bullets don't all shoot at the same speed after all.

 

[Jason_Courne]

It seems as if AT-ET's might have larger blasters that can shoot at a higher speed. Real life bullets don't all shoot at the same speed after all.

Yeah good point, I remembered this scan of slugthrowers stated to shoot at Hypersonic speeds, but it came from Shatterpoint (EU / Legends)

So it looks like we'll just roll with Supersonic average for blasters

 

[Random-Helper323]

It is worth pointing out that the Mythbusters calculation would make them as slow as an arrow from a recurved bow. This would mean they were outclassed in terms of projectile speed by crossbows, let alone modern firearms.

This low speed has been the subject of ridicule for a reason. It is kind of strange for a futuristic society to have such slow "bullets".

 

[Hypertornado099]

Yeah but that can be heavily considered due to technological restrictions of a(n older) live action media.

No, its not difficult to make bolts that travel that fast (the very first movie shows an energy beam moving at MHS speeds), in fact it could even be easier since it requires less frames (like in the Battlefront II example)

It feels weird to use those 2 calcs instead of literally any other instance of a blaster bolt moving. How do you know which one is more "accurate" to use? I'm willing to bet blaster bolts don't even have a consistent speed in the same movie

This low speed has been the subject of ridicule for a reason. It is kind of strange for a futuristic society to have such slow "bullets".

I mean, there could be reasons for blasters being used that have nothing to do with speed

 

[Random-Helper323]

No, its not difficult to make bolts that travel that fast (the very first movie shows an energy beam moving at MHS speeds), in fact it could even be easier since it requires less frames (like in the Battlefront II example)

It feels weird to use those 2 calcs instead of literally any other instance of a blaster bolt moving. How do you know which one is more "accurate" to use? I'm willing to bet blaster bolts don't even have a consistent speed in the same movie


I mean, there could be reasons for blasters being used that have nothing to do with speed

True. Maybe blaster bolts vary even more than real life bullets do in terms of speed. And if we twist around my comment above, we know that bows are useful despite their lower speed, so a projectile that travels at 130mph is definitely viable in warfare.

Also, from how blasters behave it appears as if they do deeper burn damage thus still giving them an advantage over bullets, and also, they work in space, an important function for an interstellar civilization.

 

[Jason_Courne]

It kind of is actually, most movies and media aren't exactly filmed at 60 fps, and in most scenarios the blaster fights in them tend to be in small(er) spaces than the huge battlefields in Battlefront II

Those two combined make it practically impossible for any higher speeds

 

[Hypertornado099]

It kind of is actually, most movies and media aren't exactly filmed at 60 fps, and in most scenarios the blaster fights in them tend to be in small(er) spaces than the huge battlefields in Battlefront II

I'm not sure why it being below 60fps matters? I'm pretty sure Clone Wars wasn't 60fps either and it can depict bolts moving faster than they were in the original trilogy

The smaller space is also not really an excuse, they could still depict it being super fast by making it hitscan for example. So yeah its definitely more "inconsistent speed" than "they didn't have the technology to make it fast"

 

[Jason_Courne]

Because the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is literally 2x. 3 frames at 30 fps is .1 second, 3 frames at 60 fps is .05 seconds.
Meaning the games allow for a way more accurate sense of speed considering their upper limit is in 120 to 240 fps, while films and other media are locked in at 24 to 30 fps.

The Battlefront blaster calc linked is literally an example of this, I screen recorded at 60 fps, if I used 30 fps it would be literally half as fast because of the lower frame rate

 

[Hypertornado099]

Because the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is literally 2x. 3 frames at 30 fps is .1 second, 3 frames at 60 fps is .05 seconds.
Meaning the games allow for a way more accurate sense of speed considering their upper limit is in 120 to 240 fps, while films and other media are locked in at 24 to 30 fps.

The Battlefront blaster calc linked is literally an example of this, I screen recorded at 60 fps, if I used 30 fps it would be literally half as fast because of the lower frame rate

That's untrue, doubling the framerate doesn't make things go twice as fast. Try watching a 60fps video at half speed, then compare it to 30fps, the half speed 60fps video would be very slow in comparison. If this clip was recorded at 30fps, the bolt would have taken 1.5 frames to move that distance and the speed of the bolt would have stayed at 668.6 m/s

Also this

The smaller space is also not really an excuse, they could still depict it being super fast by making it hitscan for example.

Its actually easier to animate a super fast hitscan bolt than this, since it requires less frames to animate

 

[Hypertornado099]

This conversation started because we're comparing blaster bolt speeds between different medium and I feel like its kinda obvious that Battlefront II's bolts are a different speed compared to bolts in some modern Star Wars media

 

[Jason_Courne]

That's untrue, doubling the framerate doesn't make things go twice as fast. Try watching a 60fps video at half speed, then compare it to 30fps, the half speed 60fps video would be very slow in comparison. If this clip was recorded at 30fps, the bolt would have taken 1.5 frames to move that distance and the speed of the bolt would have stayed at 668.6 m/s

You are using an exact 1 to 1 ratio, that is not how it would work. 1.5 frames at 30 fps is TECHNICALLY the same timeframe, but it is an exactly instaneous moment.

 

[Hypertornado099]

but it is an exactly instaneous moment.

Why is that relevant? Also why don't you calc the speed of bolts in Battlefront II's cutscenes?

 

[Jason_Courne]

Why is that relevant? Also why don't you calc the speed of bolts in Battlefront II's cutscenes?

Because people actually watch cartoons and movies

Why did I load up a personal server on Battlefront II and spend 10 seconds recording a clip where I have absolute control over camera angles, recording speed, and quality vs playing through the entire 8 hour campaign or watching a 2 hour video where the quality is dogshit and I have to deal with the cinematography of cutscenes?