|
Post by Destecado on May 18, 2004 17:59:52 GMT -5
This model has always bothered me as being not only ugly, by also aerodynamically unsound. I am proposing while looking at the technology behind this imperial Vehichle, we should also set about creating a Mark II varient of it. this would be a vehicle that retains the fire power and capabilities of the original, but works and looks more realistic. To give you an idea of the direction that I am thinking of heading with this revamped gunship, take a look at the dropship pictures from Starship Troopers (halfway down the page). While I am not saying that we should make it look exactly like this, we should think of including a vectored thrust system which (personally) makes more sense than the current engine arrangement. www.starshipmodeler.com/Other/stroop.htmAny input on creating a mark II version of the Thunderhawk would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 29, 2004 10:24:51 GMT -5
I'm reminded of the dropships from Aliens for some reason, including the fact that 'contra-grav' (anti-grav) systems ameliorate the aerodynamic questions. Of course, it just makes sense if you can reduce the power requirement of the drop ship by giving it surface lift characteristics... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 29, 2004 14:39:08 GMT -5
What's the point in making a Thunderhawk Mk II? We could probably make more realistic power armour, more realistic tanks for the Space Marines, and more realistic Eldar ships, but... it wouldn't really be any good, IMO, since it would just be moving away from the actual Warhammer 40,000 universe. Sleek and slender aircraft and tanks might be more realistic, but it's not 40k.... Of course, I'm on unfamiliar ground here in the RPG forum, the ASP underworld*, so I'll keep my voice low * I know Kage will comment on this, stressing once again that the RPG is as important as the wargaming aspect of the project Just kidding!! ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 29, 2004 23:09:41 GMT -5
Well, we already have 'more realistic statistics for power armour. And if by moving away from the 40k universe we do so by detailing more things then I say power to us! After all, that's the point of the project. And it might not necessarily be a bad thing if Anargo saw the development of more efficient lift systems. I mean, think of the ramifications to interface (ETO) activities! It doesn't mean that the 'Imperium' as a whole are going to get them, just that the adeptus mechanicus might have developed them! ;D Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 30, 2004 0:55:32 GMT -5
Well, we already have 'more realistic statistics for power armour. You may remember that I did not like these statistics much, so it's basically the same as what's being done with the Thunderhawk. Creating a more 'realistic' version at the expense of accordance with fluff and the Warhammer 40,000 universe. It's not the detailing in itself, of course. It's the direction you choose. I'm detailing concepts in the 40k universe myself, but I go to great lengths to try and make it fit with the fluff. Yeah, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to develop this Thunderhawk Mk II. I just think there are better ways to spend your time on the ASP. But hey, in the words of Obi Wan Kenobi; You must do what you feel is right, of course
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 30, 2004 1:23:54 GMT -5
You may remember that I did not like these statistics much... Hmmn... cannot quite remember any reason being given why that power armour was not consistent with the 'fluff' or, at least, the good 'fluff'... Although you might be talking about the generic concept of creating RPG statistics for things that have wargame statistics especially if there is divergence from what the wargame suggests. Of course, one could merely argue that you're replacing one set of horrendous assumptions and abstractions for another... Creating a more 'realistic' version at the expense of accordance with fluff and the Warhammer 40,000 universe. I'm going to have to ask. Why is the adeptus mechanicus potentially developing a new pattern Thunderhawk at the expense of the 'fluff'? Modifying the original Thunderhawk would do that, not developing an upgrade... It's not the detailing in itself, of course. It's the direction you choose. I'm detailing concepts in the 40k universe myself, but I go to great lengths to try and make it fit with the fluff. As do I. But I'm also not worried about ignoring a concept that is patently ridiculous or expanding upon concepts and ideas to their full potential. Yeah, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to develop this Thunderhawk Mk II. I just think there are better ways to spend your time on the ASP. I'm not going to be developing it. If someone else wants to take it up in a system, then bully for them. And I can think of numerous things that everyone could be best doing with their time, but one of the things that comes with a 'fan based' project is that we're not paying anyone and they get to use their time how they will... Kage
|
|
|
Post by CELS on May 30, 2004 4:38:36 GMT -5
Hmmn... cannot quite remember any reason being given why that power armour was not consistent with the 'fluff' or, at least, the good 'fluff'... This is not the thread to discuss it, but I had major discrepancies regarding the weight of power armour that you'd calculated. Good point, but I wasn't saying that at all I believe I explained this earlier, but I might have been unclear. Just developing a new pattern Thunderhawk doesn't contradict fluff in any way. Saying that the Mk. II version is widely used borders on contradicting the fluff, IMO. LoL! Yes, obviously. But to "go to great lengths" is apparently a very relative term I'm not saying that you tend to ignore the fluff or anything like that though, so don't shoot me. Ah, never mind, I'm just starting an argument out of boredom. Move along. Nothing to see here
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on May 30, 2004 4:50:32 GMT -5
This is not the thread to discuss it, but I had major discrepancies regarding the weight of power armour that you'd calculated. <grin> Fair enough, though one could merely point out that the value stated by GW is patently ridiculous. What was it again? 250kgs? Or was it 250 lbs, essentially just a set of plate armour? And from a wargamer's perspective, when has one glitchy number ever prevented someone from seeing the value of the rest! I believe I explained this earlier, but I might have been unclear. Just developing a new pattern Thunderhawk doesn't contradict fluff in any way. Saying that the Mk. II version is widely used borders on contradicting the fluff, IMO. Ah, then I seem not to have been clear (not quite sure from the above post, but still). Take another look, I'm sure that you'll find that I mentioned the idea of "Anargo developing more efficient lift systems" and comments of similar ilk. LoL! Yes, obviously. But to "go to great lengths" is apparently a very relative term I'm not saying that you tend to ignore the fluff or anything like that though, so don't shoot me. Ah, never mind, I'm just starting an argument out of boredom. Move along. Nothing to see here S'okay. I'm posting here since I don't want to write the chapter, but I could just put the final few hundred words on the Anargo SR and that would greatly placate some... But just cannot bring myself to do it! But, yes, it is a relative term. You'll note, however, that the majority of my concepts tend to be 'fluff' transparent, that is to say that you can quite readily ignore them or take it as gospel. The Metarune, the Philosophies, the Greatest Secret, the Imperial Pony Express, Micro-Empires, blah blah... What you most likely have a problem with is the eldar... <sigh> Really must try and persuade LordFenric that we should open up that forum... Kage
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jun 3, 2004 8:56:36 GMT -5
Actually, if you look at the original Land Raider model vs the newest version, alot has changed. This hold true for the new rhino and land speeder models as well. For the most part, I am referring t an updated version of the thunder hawk similar to the way these models were updated.
It will still retain the boxy appearance that can be found through out most Imperial vehicles. I just want to reenvision what this vehicle might look like. As stated in my original post the current design just seems "wrong" to me in some way.
|
|
|
Post by malika on Jul 15, 2004 4:18:38 GMT -5
The Thunderhawk has been updated relatively recently, I mean there was this older model which you could get through mail order: www.bymtl.com/gallery/marines/lightning-strike/thunderhawk/pgs/thunderhawk1.htmAnd then if you look at the newer one: www.forgeworld.co.uk/thunder1.htmIt looks a bit less like the small almost cube the older ship was. Remember also that this is 40k, it takes place in the 41st milenium, technology has advanced over the years, the Thunderhawk might have powerfull enough engines that it doesnt matter if it is aerodynamic. Also remember that they are used for combat in space, where the whole aerodynamic thing doesnt matter at all
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 15, 2004 4:52:40 GMT -5
<grin> One line post... watch out, CELS will get you.
Incidentally, perhaps it would have extended the post to include a reference to this change or, alternatively, a picture of the altered model?
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jul 24, 2004 2:21:15 GMT -5
It uses power shields to slip the air (or it should).
Er, hi CELS!
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 24, 2004 2:35:41 GMT -5
Why use an advanced technology to do something that a bit of brains could achieve with just changing the basic shape?
|
|
|
Post by malika on Jul 24, 2004 2:41:22 GMT -5
Because that would be heresy against the Machine God!!! They burn you for that in the Imperium
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 24, 2004 3:21:35 GMT -5
Let me put it another way, why would you produce an interface vehicle that disrespected the basic laws of physics?
|
|