There is literally nothing that can be done to save the K-wing.

That's hyperbole. If you can cut the plastic, it can be "saved".

There is literally nothing that can be done to save the K-wing.

That's hyperbole. If you can cut the plastic, it can be "saved".

It would be easier to just start with a new ship from the ground up. Seriously, you'd have to do so much work it would probably be less intensive just to start over with plasticard or to make your own molds and cast your own ships, or to do Shapeways.

It would be easier to just start with a new ship from the ground up. Seriously, you'd have to do so much work it would probably be less intensive just to start over with plasticard or to make your own molds and cast your own ships, or to do Shapeways.

I personally like the basic shape of it, I think the outline provides a decent base. IMHO it needs some clipping more so than sculpting or plasticard work. No reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Then again, I enjoy that sort of thing. If it's not your cup of tea, it's not your cup of tea.

Actually if you are trying to compare it to WWII the K-Wing would fit more into the medium bomber range like the B25 or B26. I see it like a WWII TBF or a postwar AD1 Skyraider(no turret, but you can hang anything on the wings or fuselage). Ugly maybe, the A10 is ugly, but will it be an effective ship in the game?

The A-10 isn't ugly. People keep saying that, but its design is logical, and is reflective of its capabilities. The K-wing is just dumb. And, in reference to babies and bathwater, I'd rather keep the dirty bathwater than the baby in this case. I think the Spartans had a pretty sound policy when it came to babies like the K-wing.

The A-10 isn't ugly. People keep saying that, but its design is logical, and is reflective of its capabilities. The K-wing is just dumb. And, in reference to babies and bathwater, I'd rather keep the dirty bathwater than the baby in this case. I think the Spartans had a pretty sound policy when it came to babies like the K-wing.

Oh well. You don't like it, you don't like it. I've stated my point.

I will caution that anyone looking for logical design in Star Wars and using real world examples has set themselves up for failure. The entire design ethic it "what looks cool". Which is part of what I love the Star Wars universe.

The A-10 isn't ugly. People keep saying that, but its design is logical, and is reflective of its capabilities. The K-wing is just dumb. And, in reference to babies and bathwater, I'd rather keep the dirty bathwater than the baby in this case. I think the Spartans had a pretty sound policy when it came to babies like the K-wing.

No the A-10 is ugly. What makes the A-10 Beautiful is 1st of all that sweet Vulcan on the front, as well as it's ordnance capabilites. The K-wing is no different. It might have a questionable design, but 19 hard points (as per EU) is going to translate over to some major upgrade slots for this thing in game.

I also like how you keep trying to apply Real world logic to a Space ship set in a fictional universe. "The turret is useless there" "Who puts an engine there?" "That ball turret has GOT to go", When it fights in space, which if you look at space ship designs, the standard TIE fighter makes less sense than a K-wing if you try to apply your logic to it. But hate all you want, I will be happy to field a K0wing squad in an instant.

No the A-10 is ugly. What makes the A-10 Beautiful is 1st of all that sweet Vulcan on the front, as well as it's ordnance capabilities.

That's 100% truth.

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

Well I've thrown out moving the engine and modding the chin turret. What would you do to make it better? Or what would you see in place of that design all-together?

There is literally nothing that can be done to save the K-wing. It is, much like Homer's car, an Edsel. Except the Edsel was better-designed and better looking. I can't believe people are actually comparing it to a B-17. It's nothing like a B-17. The B-17 guns actually were placed in logical position with real fields of fire. And the chin turret on the B-17 isn't a ball turret, the ball turret is placed closer to the center of mass so the weight of it doesn't give the thing incredibly terrible flight characteristics. Those who compare it to the A-10 are ignoring 90% of the K-wing design, which includes two useless side-by-side cockpits, a third engine thrown on top for no reason, a rear gunner whose purpose seems to be to shoot his own engine, a chin ball turret which adds a horrendous amount of weight for zero functionality, and then two weird legs sticking off the wings because, hey, it had to look like the letter K!

I think that's what really bugs me, for some reason. The B-wing doesn't look anything like the letter B, they probably just figured since there was already and X-wing and Y-wing, and the A-wing sort of looked like an A so it got that name, it needed to have a letter. So why did this thing have to look like a K? At what point in the process of coming up with it did the name come in?

The A-10 isn't ugly. People keep saying that, but its design is logical, and is reflective of its capabilities. The K-wing is just dumb. And, in reference to babies and bathwater, I'd rather keep the dirty bathwater than the baby in this case. I think the Spartans had a pretty sound policy when it came to babies like the K-wing.

No the A-10 is ugly. What makes the A-10 Beautiful is 1st of all that sweet Vulcan on the front, as well as it's ordnance capabilites. The K-wing is no different. It might have a questionable design, but 19 hard points (as per EU) is going to translate over to some major upgrade slots for this thing in game.

I also like how you keep trying to apply Real world logic to a Space ship set in a fictional universe. "The turret is useless there" "Who puts an engine there?" "That ball turret has GOT to go", When it fights in space, which if you look at space ship designs, the standard TIE fighter makes less sense than a K-wing if you try to apply your logic to it. But hate all you want, I will be happy to field a K0wing squad in an instant.

But we already have a ship in the TIE Bomber with 4 ordnance slots that can't realistically use them all. Maybe the ordnance fixes will make loading up like that more practical but all that aside, the hard points design doesn't really fit in with anything else in Star Wars, the torpedo and missile tubes have been a thing since the start.

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

Well I've thrown out moving the engine and modding the chin turret. What would you do to make it better? Or what would you see in place of that design all-together?

Cut the third top engine; ditch the existing dorsal turret; move the chin turret to the dorsal location where the third engine is now, and put a pair of fixed forward firing cannons under the chin, or on the lower wings.

The B-wing doesn't look anything like the letter B, they probably just figured since there was already and X-wing and Y-wing, and the A-wing sort of looked like an A so it got that name, it needed to have a letter. So why did this thing have to look like a K? At what point in the process of coming up with it did the name come in?

Well, if you flip the B-wing so the cockpit is at the bottom, look at it from the side, and squint, it sort of looks like a lower-case "b". Flip the K-wing up on a wingtip, look at it from the rear, ignore the chin turret, and squint, and it looks sort of like a K.

We get way too literal about these things, guys.

I hope the K-Wing has Rack and Pinion steering.

I agree that any argument about star wars ships needing to be practical is wash. For example, The HWK model. It's impossible to see out of the front of the ship (based on the model we have) for goodness sakes. I don't think FFG is too worried about these things being practical.

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

Well I've thrown out moving the engine and modding the chin turret. What would you do to make it better? Or what would you see in place of that design all-together?

Cut the third top engine; ditch the existing dorsal turret; move the chin turret to the dorsal location where the third engine is now, and put a pair of fixed forward firing cannons under the chin, or on the lower wings.

I was thinking of something similar. The other option was removing the dorsal turret all-together, replacing with an Astromech and then modding the chin turret and making it smaller and less gaudy.

Additionally, another option with the topside engine is to add another and a set of vertical stabilizers (if for nothing more than aesthetic). Not unlike the A-10 everyone keeps referencing.

I was thinking of something similar. The other option was removing the dorsal turret all-together, replacing with an Astromech and then modding the chin turret and making it smaller and less gaudy.

Additionally, another option with the topside engine is to add another and a set of vertical stabilizers (if for nothing more than aesthetic). Not unlike the A-10 everyone keeps referencing.

An Astromech in the current dorsal turret spot would make sense to me.

If we go all A-10, then we need a multi-barrel forward firing blaster, just because.

It's a friggin' spaceship -- why should it look anything like a WWII bomber? Ugh.

The only thing I think is really garish on the K-Wing is the third engine mounted on top. It looks just sort-of slapped on, and I think thrust from that position would give it incredible performance problems rather than adding speed.

A stabilizer or something would've worked better.

The turret placement on the K-Wing is quite true to the design that the ship was clearly based on:

...Granted, the B-17's performance was really only hindered by those turrets (it's payload was terrible in comparison to the Lancaster, owing mostly to the space it had to surrender to machine gun ammunition and gunners - neither of which did a particularly admirable job of protecting the plane), but if you're going to mount turrets on your bomber, you mount them towards the front.

...Granted, the B-17's performance was really only hindered by those turrets (it's payload was terrible in comparison to the Lancaster, owing mostly to the space it had to surrender to machine gun ammunition and gunners - neither of which did a particularly admirable job of protecting the plane), but if you're going to mount turrets on your bomber, you mount them towards the front.

Er, you mean like this?

Nose, rear dorsal, tail?

Sorry, guys, but space is no defense for a turret aimed at your own engine.

so the turrets on the stuka, B-25, B-17, B-29, A-20, TBF, SBD, B5N2, which all had turrets that had the tail within their firing arc, were all impractical yet they were used Responsibly and effectively.

...Granted, the B-17's performance was really only hindered by those turrets (it's payload was terrible in comparison to the Lancaster, owing mostly to the space it had to surrender to machine gun ammunition and gunners - neither of which did a particularly admirable job of protecting the plane), but if you're going to mount turrets on your bomber, you mount them towards the front.

Er, you mean like this?

Nose, rear dorsal, tail?

Yeah, and with a payload of about 14,000 lbs worth of bombs, vs the B-17's 3,000 lbs - because while the Lancaster certainly had defensive guns, it didn't have 13 of them, like my dear Queen of the Sky.

Later versions of the B-17 carried almost more weight in machine gun round than they did in explosives.

Totally agree. it's got elements that are good. It just needs some refinement.

Honestly, what it strikes me as is someone taking elements from large bombers and putting them on a small fighter chassis. If the engines, turret, cannons and even underside wings were all kept the same size but the body itself doubled in size the whole thing would be much improved.

I can't help it. I keep looking at the K, and I keep seeing...

And I can't help it.. It just pops in there...

Kwing turret. yes.

Honestly, what it strikes me as is someone taking elements from large bombers and putting them on a small fighter chassis. If the engines, turret, cannons and even underside wings were all kept the same size but the body itself doubled in size the whole thing would be much improved.

Totally agree. I think an increase of the hull would do wonders for the overall design. That said, I think it's got workable parts in there for a starfighter sized vehicle.

The K-Wing(AND ALL OF THE GCW ERA) works if you view it through WW II eyes.

TIE/ln=Me 109/Zero, excellent at the start of the war, outclassed by later developments.

TIE /ad=Do 335, excellent craft that probably should've superseded what was in production, but didn't for various reasons.

TIE/in=Me 262 superior craft in many ways, never made in enough numbers to make a difference.

TIE/sa=Stuka, dive bomber in an era of strategic bombing, overproduced.

TIE/IT=He 177, huge strategic bomber with poor initial design(TIE Heavy Bomber), hampered by poor policies(focus on dive bombing/focus on numbers), might have worked if a proper design approach was taken to it. Never produced in enough numbers once the kinks worked out.

TIE/D=Wunderwaffe. Potentially the most powerful fighter ever built on paper, actual production almost impossible in any numbers to make a difference.

X-Wing=P-51 Mustang, don't need to explain I hope.

Y-Wing=P38 Lightning, tough, multi-purpose heavy fighter.

A-Wing=Meteor, same reasons as the 262

B-Wing=B-17, all the guns, ALL OF THEM.

K-Wing=A-10 Warthog, useful in the role it was designed, subjectively ugly, possibly obsolete/too specialized to be useful(even before production), a source of constant skub.

H-Wing=Stipa-Caproni, shouldn't exist, does. Alternatively, this thing: http://i.iplsc.com/-/000203DKAY1ACU9Q-C317-F3.jpg

Z-95= Gloster Gladiator, obsolete, still doing good work.

All of my choices are subjective and not the point, the GCW is WW II in space. All the "weight arguments against the K-Wing don't work in space, it's intended role. It's an A-10 Warthog, useful in the role it was designed, subjectively ugly, possibly obsolete/too specialized to be useful(even before production), a source of constant skub.