Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Forum index  > General discussion   >

BlackDawn model has been ruined :(

30 posts, 1918 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 2 (30 records)
sort
Skasi
11 years ago
Lights on the new model rotate too? Maybe they should remain static.
+2 / -0

DErankAdminmojjj
11 years ago
why that saski? trololotating lights are pro!
+0 / -1


PLrankRafalpluk
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
quote:
Lights on the new model rotate too?

Yes they do. :/
+1 / -0

CHrankConnetable
11 years ago
Wings are not optimal I agree.
+1 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Much more constructive than your original reaction Rafal. >_>

The 'wings' are set up the way they are because most of the time, the blackdawn is moving and the wings are angled backwards as you can see in the old Blackdawn.

But I can stick the engines on the 'bottom' rather than the 'back' of the wings, if you like.

The lights can not spin, but I like that because it makes the spinning more obvious. I tried a slower spin, but it didn't really look like a fan.

The BD used to be a fixed solid flying brick. All planes need to have moving parts.
+4 / -0


EErankAdminAnarchid
11 years ago
I'm going to restate my thoughts on this.

1) Old magical flying brick without weapons and with permablazing jets was awful and silliest model ZK had.
2) New one is much better. At least it tries to be a gunship.
3) All flaws in new one are those left from the original:
- permablaze
- lack of visible weapons
- color is dissonant with rest of gunship models

The thing new one does suboptimally is rotor size. I agree that blades, not the whole construction, should rotate. Maybe thickness of blade ring could also be reduced. But imo that is much less important than, say, getting rid of permablaze.
+8 / -1

CHrankConnetable
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
What I meant about wings is simply that they are not wide enough. The width of the old model was more appropriate.

Oh, I had a closer look: is it true that wings are now pivoting depending whether the ship is standing or moving?

But if so, why adding engines on the wings? If ship is idle, then rotor maintaining him, if it is moving, the back engines do the job...
+0 / -0

GBrankSab
11 years ago
Yeah new one is more realistic...
+0 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
Rotating engines are ALWAYS cool. Because Banshee.
+0 / -1


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
11 years ago
The engines also have to look good. I think it's pretty clear that engines should not point out of the side of a wing, it breaks symmetry and makes no sense structurally.
+0 / -0

CArankPxtl
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Maybe just giving *the wings* a slight forward tilt/backwards tilt on motion would be a good compromise. Like, 22° tilt instead of 90° tilt. Or just have the wings stay level to the ground as it pitches forward and back. Just a little hint of animation to get rid of the "flying rock" effect. Flatten the wings a bit so their travel doesn't have corners look disconnected from the main fuselage. The BD obviously gets its lift from the belly, not the wings anyways.

Edit: I meant *the wings* tilt forward/back. Obviously the whole damned thing tilts to attack.
+0 / -0

AUrankAdminSaktoth
11 years ago
The BD already tilts around, it'd still be a flying brick.

The engines in the back are really bad, they make so little sense for something that spends mostof it's time hovering.

What 'breaks the symetry'? Having the wings be narrow like that? Most of the time they aren't they're pitched back because it's moving, and I could put the engine on the bottom of the wing.

And structurally? It's the same as the Banshee.
+0 / -0

USrankluckywaldo7
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Those little winglet type things on the side were never believable just as wings. I'm just as happy to see them used as hybrid rotating nacelles instead.
+0 / -0
USrankBatman
11 years ago
(edited 6 months ago)
i like the old model
+0 / -0


AUrankAdminGoogleFrog
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
As in it's clearly a rocket pointing out the side of a wing. It would be better it looked like a rotatable engine instead of a refitted wing.

Also the hitvolume is messed up.
+0 / -0

USrankluckywaldo7
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
Even if it is supposed to be a wing, it makes way more sense to have it rotating to a positive angle of attack. Having it fixed where it is always pointing at a downward angle would be generating negative lift.

Not that the model needs to perfectly reflect reality because it won't anyway, but I don't think the argument for the previous model being better is objective.
+0 / -0
GBrankTheSponge
11 years ago
Maybe DErank_LordMuffe_ will make a new Black Dawn? I bet that would be better than both of these flying saucer models.
+4 / -0
DErankNeonSturm
11 years ago
It makes sense, that the rotors (like on helicopters) are hidden inside.

It is an assault unit. A real heli would crash, if a rotating part gets cut by lasers.


BTW: I think Gunships shouldn't use JET engines to maintain the altitude.
+0 / -1

GBrankTheEloIsALie
11 years ago
(edited 11 years ago)
All those arguments are realism arguments, aren't they?
+1 / -0
PLrankunsword
11 years ago
Your real problem is that you're just bound up to the old model, and while the new model offers different balance in the overall scheme you are just forcing yourself to hate it.

What I'm thinking about is something else actually, I'm just wondering why the devs didn't make entirely new model, comeon guys there are tons of good looking propositions for a Gunship, it didn't exactly had to stay in the same scheme, now, did it?
+1 / -1
Page of 2 (30 records)