Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
slowreflex

Close-Ups of Wave 9 from Yavin

Recommended Posts

 

 

I doubt the ps 3 will have an ept (need to give the 5 a reason to exist)

 

but if it's a 22 pointer, it might be very usable

 

then you can run four PS 5 crackshots if you want

nah man i got a need for baffles/rage even if its stupid. if it has ok greens every turn will be like

 

 

baffled rage is quickdraw's calling card :P

 

exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not attacking any designers? I'm saying FFG took a model of something really awkward to physically produce because of it's shape and protrusions, and made a bloody good job of it. As someone who works with injection molding machines regularly, I can appreciate the hell out of how they've executed it (the guns on the X-wing still fascinate me from a molding standpoint).

The Lucasfilm designers put out something that looks, frankly, ridiculous. It's not the first time they've done so, and it won't be the last. Considering the number of wild looking ships they invent every year, some of them are always going to questionable. Not everything can be as instantly iconic as an X-wing or ISD. I still don't like the offset propulsion on the Jumpmaster, or the offset cockpit on the Falcon/Outrider, but it's not going to stop me from using them in a game for fun.

 

I thought they made perfect sense if:YT_freight_pusher.jpg

I still love this concept art, it brings it all full circle from Kenner in the 80s attempting to sell some accessories to fit in the mandibles of the falcon. Unfortunately it never got past the planning stages.

The offset cockpit on the outrider still makes no sense. Actually, the Outrider has never made sense to me other than being a super Falcon for use as a toy and in video games for SotE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, the YT-2400 design never really made sense, The cockpit is even further offset than on the YT-1300 and for no good reason. But since the Millennium Falcon is iconic and has an offset cockpit, lots of other ships are asymmetrical for the sake of being asymmetrical. It's silly because both Legends and new canon have shown you can make a ship obviously Corellian even when it's symmetrical.

YT-2000_SotG.jpgVolt_Cobra.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcon cockpit is offset because George walked into the prop shop at ILM one day and changed everything. The CR90 model was actually supposed to be the original Falcon, but when Lucasfilm saw it, he said it didn't look right; neither fast or sleek looking enough for Solo's character. Rather than scrap the model, it was slightly reworked (the hammerhead prow added) and it became what we all saw.

The Falcon that we did actually see was what the prop makers designed afterwards, but the orientation was different. It was originally supposed to land flat, but fly vertically (like a sailfish) with the cockpit rotating to suit orientation on the top. Lucas saw the model sitting on a bench stand at some point, and decided it should fly like that instead.

So once again, blame George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my hopes and prayers go out to the tie/sf for the 3 ps generic to have an ept, and to be cheap enough i can run 4 with a decent loadout at 100 points. god bless and my the force be w/ u little coggies

 

It doesn't.  You can just see the EPT on the PS 5 generic, but there is nothing there in the same space on the PS 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcon cockpit is offset because George walked into the prop shop at ILM one day and changed everything. The CR90 model was actually supposed to be the original Falcon, but when Lucasfilm saw it, he said it didn't look right; neither fast or sleek looking enough for Solo's character. Rather than scrap the model, it was slightly reworked (the hammerhead prow added) and it became what we all saw.

The Falcon that we did actually see was what the prop makers designed afterwards, but the orientation was different. It was originally supposed to land flat, but fly vertically (like a sailfish) with the cockpit rotating to suit orientation on the top. Lucas saw the model sitting on a bench stand at some point, and decided it should fly like that instead.

So once again, blame George.

It wasn't about Lucas randomly changing his mind, more about Lucas not wanting to look like he was copying someone else, even if it was a coincidence. For those interested, really good (and pretty long) article abut MF and Tantive IV history: http://kitbashed.com/blog/a-complete-history-of-the-millennium-falcon

I have never heard about vertical flying Falcon though, it'd complicate the interior design quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy with the design of Fang Fighter and Shadow Caster! Shadow Caster just needs some mable syrup and it will be ready to serve! :D

My god you're on to something. The tubes on the sides could be sausages. Breakfast-wing is alive!

Edited by koolaidyeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcon cockpit is offset because George walked into the prop shop at ILM one day and changed everything. The CR90 model was actually supposed to be the original Falcon, but when Lucasfilm saw it, he said it didn't look right; neither fast or sleek looking enough for Solo's character. Rather than scrap the model, it was slightly reworked (the hammerhead prow added) and it became what we all saw.

The Falcon that we did actually see was what the prop makers designed afterwards, but the orientation was different. It was originally supposed to land flat, but fly vertically (like a sailfish) with the cockpit rotating to suit orientation on the top. Lucas saw the model sitting on a bench stand at some point, and decided it should fly like that instead.

So once again, blame George.

I quite like the Falcon as it is. It's iconic for a reason. The problem is that so many other ship designs have copied the Falcon's offset cockpit, but they did it much worse. With the Falcon, the cockpit location causes only a very slight mass imbalance and it would not be difficult to offset with internal ballast weights on the port side. And the engines are centered, as they logically should be on any ship. The same can't be said of the Outrider and Punishing One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the pics of the SF, especially the back, and thinking back to all the "it's not different enough to be a release/it'll just be a title" posts :P

I agree. It's now my favorite ship in the game aesthetically. I might even buy more than one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very happy with the design of Fang Fighter and Shadow Caster! Shadow Caster just needs some mable syrup and it will be ready to serve! :D

My god you're on to something. The tubes on the sides could be sausages. Breakfast-wing is alive!

Next wave: Bacon Fighter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone catch the name on the shadowcraft... its a PS6, not one that was seen in the spoiler.

I noticed that they changed the PS4 pilot in the card fan to the PS5 Sabine, and both the chit and the card for the PS6 pilot look like they say Asajj Ventress now (I'm not sure if before it was different or I just didn't notice at the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not attacking any designers? I'm saying FFG took a model of something really awkward to physically produce because of it's shape and protrusions, and made a bloody good job of it. As someone who works with injection molding machines regularly, I can appreciate the hell out of how they've executed it (the guns on the X-wing still fascinate me from a molding standpoint).

The Lucasfilm designers put out something that looks, frankly, ridiculous. It's not the first time they've done so, and it won't be the last. Considering the number of wild looking ships they invent every year, some of them are always going to questionable. Not everything can be as instantly iconic as an X-wing or ISD. I still don't like the offset propulsion on the Jumpmaster, or the offset cockpit on the Falcon/Outrider, but it's not going to stop me from using them in a game for fun.

 

I thought they made perfect sense if:

I still love this concept art, it brings it all full circle from Kenner in the 80s attempting to sell some accessories to fit in the mandibles of the falcon. Unfortunately it never got past the planning stages.

The offset cockpit on the outrider still makes no sense. Actually, the Outrider has never made sense to me other than being a super Falcon for use as a toy and in video games for SotE.

 

 

The offset cockpit on the YT-1300 is supposed to help with freight... but I still don't buy that one.  The offset on the YT-2400 works better IMHO because the primary escape pod is directly behind the cockpit. Bad things happen? Run ten feet and head the opposite direction.  Of course, if the whole cockpit was an escape pod it would make more sense... probably too much sense.  Good thing people only drive spacecraft from the right side of the craft...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

anyone catch the name on the shadowcraft... its a PS6, not one that was seen in the spoiler.

I noticed that they changed the PS4 pilot in the card fan to the PS5 Sabine, and both the chit and the card for the PS6 pilot look like they say Asajj Ventress now (I'm not sure if before it was different or I just didn't notice at the time).

 

i noticed the sabine change as well, i thought i was going crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

 

Really?  First I've heard of it.  Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

 

The Falcon cockpit is offset because George walked into the prop shop at ILM one day and changed everything. The CR90 model was actually supposed to be the original Falcon, but when Lucasfilm saw it, he said it didn't look right; neither fast or sleek looking enough for Solo's character. Rather than scrap the model, it was slightly reworked (the hammerhead prow added) and it became what we all saw.

The Falcon that we did actually see was what the prop makers designed afterwards, but the orientation was different. It was originally supposed to land flat, but fly vertically (like a sailfish) with the cockpit rotating to suit orientation on the top. Lucas saw the model sitting on a bench stand at some point, and decided it should fly like that instead.

So once again, blame George.

 

I have never heard about vertical flying Falcon though, it'd complicate the interior design quite a bit.

 

Flying in a certain orientation in space means literally nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

 

Really?  First I've heard of it.  Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

Edited by HolySorcerer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

 

Really?  First I've heard of it.  Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

That's guided, not self-propelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to throw this one into the internet void:

I don't like the Rebels ships.

 

 I like them plenty in CGI form, but in model form the cartoony looking Ghost and Shadowcaster do not, in my opinion, fit in with the games "War-battered starships" Aesthetic.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge them being in the game, or anyone who likes them - but I feel the need to get my dislike for the Shadowcaster (and the Ghost) out there.

The CGI designs are stylised. The movie-based ships are not.

The real pity is that the FFG team isn't allowed to greebly them up to match the 'real ship' aesthetic for fear of diluting the cartoons design.

I doubt it's that they're not allowed. Honestly, they just have a sh*tty modeler doing the work. None of the Rebels stuff even matches the production images that Disney puts out to the public, in terms of proportion, or paneling. That's why we keep getting these sh*tty nonsense models where instead of sensible paneling and greebling, we get weird slits and panel scribing that just... ends. In the middle of nowhere. If you want proof that it's FFG's mediocre modeling team, and not the license, look at the terrible paneling job on the Raider. It's like a child scribbled on that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

Really? First I've heard of it. Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile
That's guided, not self-propelled.
Some of them also have rocket propulsion. Regardless, firing seeking munitions from a cannon is very much a real thing. Edited by HolySorcerer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

 

Really?  First I've heard of it.  Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

That's guided, not self-propelled.

The T-72 is equipped with the 125 mm (4.9 in) 2A46 series main gun, a significantly larger (20-mm larger) calibre than the standard 105 mm (4.1 in) gun found in contemporary Western MBTs, and still slightly larger than the 120 mm/L44 found in many modern Western MBTs. As is typical of Soviet tanks, the gun is capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles, as well as standard main gun ammunition, including HEAT and APFSDS rounds.

Emphasis mine. The cannon-fired missiles are 9K112 Kobra and 9M119 Refleks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Uh, missile cannons are a real thing. There is nothing inherent to a cannon that requires it to fire dumb projectiles.

 

Really?  First I've heard of it.  Everything I've read (and the opinion of any old layman you'll ask on the street) says cannons fire now-self-propelling projectiles.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon-launched_guided_projectile

 

That's guided, not self-propelled.

 

The T-72 is equipped with the 125 mm (4.9 in) 2A46 series main gun, a significantly larger (20-mm larger) calibre than the standard 105 mm (4.1 in) gun found in contemporary Western MBTs, and still slightly larger than the 120 mm/L44 found in many modern Western MBTs. As is typical of Soviet tanks, the gun is capable of firing anti-tank guided missiles, as well as standard main gun ammunition, including HEAT and APFSDS rounds.

Emphasis mine. The cannon-fired missiles are 9K112 Kobra and 9M119 Refleks.

 

 

And of course a cannon that fires shaped charge ammo is literally a cannon that fires a cannon that fires the copper slug. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Falcon cockpit is offset because George walked into the prop shop at ILM one day and changed everything. The CR90 model was actually supposed to be the original Falcon, but when Lucasfilm saw it, he said it didn't look right; neither fast or sleek looking enough for Solo's character. Rather than scrap the model, it was slightly reworked (the hammerhead prow added) and it became what we all saw.

The Falcon that we did actually see was what the prop makers designed afterwards, but the orientation was different. It was originally supposed to land flat, but fly vertically (like a sailfish) with the cockpit rotating to suit orientation on the top. Lucas saw the model sitting on a bench stand at some point, and decided it should fly like that instead.

So once again, blame George.

 

This was actually because Space 1999 was airing and the Falcon they had looked a lot like the Eagle - which was becoming a hugely popular and iconic ship at the time. The TIE Fighter, meanwhile, was stolen from The Stainless Steel Rat (the glaring evidence on GL's yellow legal pad in his own handwriting).

Edited by Lampyridae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...