TFUCG errata
The errata for the Force Unleashed Campaign Guide was released just a few minutes ago. The cargo tonnage on this ship is now 75 tons.
source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/TFUerrata
Operations.kt 23:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have heard other information about this ship and I cannot see how she could even be close to the 29m length Can someone direct me to the sizes of the ship and any internals.
--LBraden 19:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Originally the ship was supposed to be about 29 meters long; this is especially visible in the Dark Forces cutscene where Jabba the Hutt's ship captures it. However, in Jedi Knight the ship has apparently shrunken to more or less 20 meters in length, compared to Jan and Kyle standing on the ridge overlooking Baron's Hed and when they are shown piloting the craft in cockpit views during cutscenes.
There are several other differences between the Dark Forces and Jedi Knight versions of the 'Crow.
--MillenniumF 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently the size of this ship has been adjusted, the release of the next wave of starships for the X-wing miniature game is apparently informed by communications with Lucasfilm, and the length of the HWK-290 has been set at 16,5 metres now. "What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable." (talk) 21:31, May 10, 2013 (UTC)
Fantasy Flight Games did serious research to find out the true length of the Moldy Crow whereas Wizards' writers just guessed. Since the people at FFG are showing their dedication to getting their game right, I think we should show proper respect for them. We need to retcon the article to this new length, and then maybe start a new page for the 29 meter ship and call it something else, like maybe the HWK-290a, or else forget the old ship entirely. The ICS books showed the Executor's true length and class name, and I see no reason why the Moldy Crow shouldn't be treated accordingly.
--MillenniumF 04:24, 31 August 2013
- Wookieepedia does not have the power to retcon anything, and we cannot override preexisting canon because of fan research. Cade
Calrayn 00:00, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say this is "fan research" when it's LF giving FFG the updated data. It's not an "override" its an update according to new LF standards. I'd say its more reliable than any data from wotc's TFU sourcebook.--GMLovlie (talk) 13:02, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
- You keep saying that, but you've yet to provide any proof that your claims are valid. Cade Calrayn 17:21, September 28, 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, here is the closest thing to written proof as to the length in the X-Wing miniatures game http://fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4193. In the first paragraph of the HWK-290 section it discusses the length of the ship and how between the in-game appearance and discussion with LucasFilms the scale of the ship is accurate. While this doesn't prove that the ship is 16.5m it does show that it is not 29m, that thing is not bigger than 2 X-Wings placed end to end.
- There's plenty of proof if you look at the original game footage and have decent spacial awareness. Put simply, in order for the Crow to be anything approaching 29 meters in length, Kyle and Jan must be about ten feet tall. As far as I know, both Jedi Knight and TFU Campaign Guide are the same level of canon, but logically the original source should be considered the first and best evidence rather than a secondary or tertiary source. This coupled with the information provided directly from *Lucasfilm itself* should be far more than sufficient to change the length to 16.5 meters. User:MillenniumF 3:09, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
--Sorlo4030 (talk) 00:51, November 11, 2013 (UTC)
- the article says it is 1/270 scale. Why doesn't someone take a photo with measurement? easy calculation too... Still haven't got it so i can't
Manoof (talk) 10:50, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
- Calculating the size based on the length of the miniature is moot when the article itself says they came to the conclusion that the Moldy Crow is 16.5 meters in length. I still don't understand how TPTB around here ignore the people at Lucasfilm in favor of an old campaign guide which has an egregious error in the size of the HWK-290. —Unsigned comment by 72.209.168.241 (talk • contribs) 13:49, December 2, 2013 (UTC)
- So, about the firebombs thing, I cannot as of yet find a link for evidence for that, but it is in the actual in-game description for the starship strike unit of this ship in Star Wars: Commander (the mobile strategy game). It was added very recently, just before Halloween as a campaign reward unit. I will keep looking for evidence of this. Zebulander 19:15, November 6, 2014 (UTC)
IF the Length of the HWK-290 is 16.5 meters & Cargo Capacity 75 tons is the determination of Lucasilm, why is that not shown here or in the Canon entry? Primarch Anubis (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Age of the HWK-290
What is the Source for it being in service decades before the Battle of Naboo (32 BBY)? Whether or not said source is canon or not is also important. Primarch Anubis (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Production/Manufacturing Run
Just what was the production/manufacturing run for the HWK-290? The article stats that production began in the decades leading up to the Battle of Naboo and ceased during the Clone Wars. HOWEVER, further down the page it states that the Mouldy Crow was produced in 9 BBY (10 BBY according to the crow's Legends page). That suggests the HWK-290 was still being manufactured during the decade after the clone Wars ended. -Anonymous 3/06/2024 9:10 PM EST
It's 16.5m, please update it.
The 29m measurement was proven wrong back in 2013. There are no 29m HWK-290s. Please update this article. It is severely out of date.—Unsigned comment by 69.127.83.135 (talk • contribs)
- The reason it hasn't been updated yet, as is also shown above, is because no editor's taken the time yet to a) add the new source and use it as an appropriate reference and b) document the old, retconned information in a "Behind the scenes" section. That still stands; and anyone can edit; if things are out of date, folk can put in the work to fix them. We're all volunteers and welcome new contributors.—spookywillowwtalk 20:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)