This is the talk page for the article "Missile Boat."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


Missile Boat is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wookieepedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
10 August 2007 Good article nomination Success
19 August 2007 Good article
25 August 2007 Featured article candidate Success
6 September 2007 Featured article
28 June 2008 Featured article review Removed
25 July 2008 Former featured article
12 December 2008 Featured article candidate Success
28 April 2009 Featured article
Current status: Featured article

Image Edit

What do you guys feel about using the original TIE Fighter style modeling for the Missile Boat, rather than the XWA modeling? XWAUpgrade has an excellent set of renders here. We would have to, of course, ask them for permission before using any of their images--but if you guys agree, I could go ahead and ask them for a screenshot that'd be appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. --GrandAdmiralJello 19:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

  • We generally don't use unofficial images here. The pictures I generated from the XWA .OPTs are sort of a gray area, as nearly the same effect could be accomplished by taking a screenshot in the flight engine (though it it wouldn't look quite as good or as consistent) and screenshots of unmodified games are allowed. If I could, I'd use the XWA .OPTs to render new pictures for most of the XWA-only vessels, but I can't. —Darth Culator (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
    • We cannot use unofficial images here. That's basically fanon images. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I have UCP on XWA and it is very nice, but I doubt images could be used of ships that have been substantially changed cosmetically (e.g. Missile Boat, R-41, Toscan). I don't know about others, but if possible it would be good to use screenshots of non-fanon ships that are faithful to other depictions. For example, the ships seen in Rebellion and the MC-90 are reproduced well in the upgrade and would give some good alternative images. YIIMM 21:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, we need actual images of them. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • That's what I thought. Most fan-produced artwork certainly would not belong in this site. However, there is a bit of a problem here in that there are two rival depictions for the craft--and TIE was the only one to actually feature it in any real capacity. XWA has some significant problems with the Missile Boat, including improper armaments and a lack of any sort of SLAM system at all. --GrandAdmiralJello 23:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Which is why we shouldn't use it in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax 01:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
              • Except that we are and have been using it. It's what's currently being used now, and that's part of the reason why I feel it's problematic. --GrandAdmiralJello 09:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
                • Then it should be fixed. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
                  • Quite right, which is why I suggested using the XWUpgrade image because it's a textured version of the original TIE Fighter image. I'll see what XWAUpgrade thinks about letting us use an image. --GrandAdmiralJello 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
                    • But it has to be an actual, canonical image. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
                      • And that is the problem in a nutshell. To summarize: The Missile Boat in Star Wars: TIE Fighter is a nice, curvy-looking fighter, but it has no textures--only shaded single-color surfaces. The Missile Boat in Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance has textures, but the fighter's shape is totally different from the TIE Fighter version. The XWAUpgrade guys decide to base their upgraded model on the curvy TIE Fighter version, and it looks nice--it's what the X-wing Alliance version should have looked like. But it's not canon. So unless someone can get a screenshot from the DOS CD version of TIE Fighter, the only image we can use is the one that's up there. —Darth Culator (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
                        • Agreed. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
                          • And Jello to the rescue! I've finally figured out how to get screenshots on TIECD, and rather than use the admittedly silly untextured image, I've gotten a screenshot of the pretty lady inside the hangar. I'm going to put it up now, so let me know what you folks think. :) --GrandAdmiralJello 00:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Could you please post it here first? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
                              • I've already put it up--my apologies. But at any rate, here is a link to the actual image itself. --GrandAdmiralJello 00:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
                                • Well, please don't remove the other image in the process. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
                                  • Jello, you magnificent barve... Finally, a canon pic that doesn't look goofy. Why they couldn't make the XvT/XWA Missile Boat look like that is quite beyond my comprehension. I'd be inclined to switch the TIECD pic to the infobox and put the XWA pic in a BTS section. —Darth Culator (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
                                    • I've been waiting years to figure out how to get screenshots in TIE, and of course, the first thing I wanted to take a picture of was the beautiful hangar shots. There are some great ones of the other fighters as well, but most of the TIEs have had plenty of good images in other sources. Though, I might upload some good TIE Avenger shots from the hangar or the Battle 4 cutscene, and then provide them to someone in those articles. I haven't practiced the Wiki asthetic yet. The fighters just look better in TIE--I think they got lazy in XWA. --GrandAdmiralJello 01:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy smokes, that's an awesome new image for the info box. I wish *I* had the guide that thing came from. --GrandAdmiralJello 05:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't like that yellow background. - TopAce (Talk) 20:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • just take photoshop and remove the background if you dont like it :p Rookie_One 18:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I updated the MIS Hanger photo with a higher resolution graphic. I also added a graphic of the high res cockpit views from TIE95, to include a hanger departure shot.mistau1
  • I have photoshopped the info box image, replacing Yellow with gray, but I will seek approval before posting it.--MIS Tau 1 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't the newer XwA image be the primary one in the infobox? Consider that the original design appears ONLY in the original release of TIE Fighter and was replaced by the newer one in the Collector's CD re-release. The newer design was then carried over to XwA as well. That's two appearances of the newer design, one of which seems to directly replace and supercede the original design. By my understanding of canon, that means the newer design takes precedence, a la how the multiple re-releases of the Original Trilogy redefined the appearances and events contained therein. I still think that we should have an "alternate design" section, but it seems to me like this should be the other way around. Brandon Peat 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

General EditingEdit

  • I've spent the past two days collecting my resources and composing this massive edit, and finished it this evening. Overall I organized and expanded the entire article. As always I attempt to keep original content on the page where possible, but with such a large amount of info added, and organizing the corresponding sections, some stuff got trampled. I've nominated this version for a GA, I would like to see it become a FA, but it may never have enough content. I'm not completely finished, once my eyes are uncrossed from staring at it all day, I want to tweak the history section by increading the detail of the section(i.e. factory=X/7 Production Facility "Tarrak").--MIS Tau 1 00:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


I have yet to find the source for "XM-1 Nova Wing" in Star Wars: TIE Fighter or any of its strategy guides, moreover it's named this in Star Wars: X-wing Allaince either. I don't have the XWA guide, perhaps it's in there, but if i don't get an answer soon, I will be moving the page back to "Missile Boat", unless someone can help me.--MIS Tau 1 23:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't move the page to "Missile Boat". I know it is canonically called the XM-1 Nova Wing in an official source. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't suppose you care to share which one with us? :P Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't have the games or their strategy guides; however, if my memory serves me right, I saw the name "XM-1 Nova Wing" in a strategy guide when I picked it up in a local game store a while ago. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • With all due respect, nobody's memory is a substitute for a canonical source. Should a source not be found soon, per MIS Tau1, it should be moved to Missile Boat and left there. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I disagree. We have it here for a reason, and obviously someone must know if this name is canonical. It should be left here until it's confirmed that "XM-1 Nova Wing" isn't canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
            • JimRaynor55 added "XM-1 Nova Wing" on April 26, 2005. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
            • As I understand it, we go the other way around—we keep the known-to-be-canonical title until the dubious title can be confirmed or disconfirmed. I'm moving the page for now, but hopefully someone has the XWA strategy guide or some other possible sources. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
              • Agree with Gonk I do. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
                • No point in arguing now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • I recieved the XWA:OSG in the mail today, there is nothing in print about the missile boat being called the XM-1 Nova Wing. The OSG also came with a bonus disc with upgrades for XWA, I installed the disc, went to the tech library, still no mention of the previous title.--MIS Tau 1 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image re-visitedEdit

The Rebellion Era Campaign guide as a Missile boat image that is of teh "lambda-style" configuration. It's a good decade newer than any prior images, and may be indicative of what the thing "really" looks like. For reference: [1] . Dangerdan97 21:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I noticed that too. Does that made the boxy-er one from X-Wing Alliance canon now? Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The image is already uploaded and in use here and here. I didn't put it in this article because I didn't really see room for it. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Missile Boat image discrepancy Edit

Not canon, but just speculation - could the two depictions of the Missile Boat both be canon? One might be an early prototype while the other is a production version. Real-world example would be the Russian Mi-24 "Hind."

Mi-24A -

Mi-24D - 05:14, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Maximum speed with SLAM overdrive Edit

From what I've seen in youtube videos of people playing this game, I saw that the maximum speed is 305 MGLT, any opinions?

--Julian.lee.38 14:12, May 9, 2012 (UTC)