I want to know whhhhyyyyyyyyyyy you think it is ugly, and what makes it ugly, or non-starwarzy to you.
It does not share any (ANY) of the aesthetics of the original ships.
It is a flying bathtub, with guns all over and a weird bulbous "head".
Before seeing this, I swore that FFG could not add a ship to the game that was uglier than the E-Wing.
I was wrong.
It is a flying bathtub, with guns all over and a weird bulbous "head".
Same number of guns as the Y-wing. An upper turret and a chin gun. The head with the narrower neck is also similar to the Y-wing.
It is a flying bathtub, with guns all over and a weird bulbous "head".
Same number of guns as the Y-wing. An upper turret and a chin gun. The head with the narrower neck is also similar to the Y-wing.
Which effectively makes it an Assault Gunboat, amirite?
Before seeing this, I swore that FFG could not add a ship to the game that was uglier than the E-Wing.
I was wrong.
Cool. Now when I deploy my E-wing I can tell it to go fly and have fun with all the other Rebel ships and if they tease it about its dorsal cannon I'll show them pictures of the K-wing
It's pretty much been said but the K-wing looks overcooked. There are too many things that the artist or designer thought were cool and just had to have. Bubble turrets, dual cockpits, extra boost engine, split wings, hardpoint bling. Building around one or two of those elements would probably work; but all of that together clutters the ship. It reminds me of Rob Liefeld comic art from the 90s which is not a compliment.
Personally I find the split cockpit with the bubble turret in between to be too crowded. I don't like the ball turret at the front, it looks awkward and fragile, I'm not even sure how that's supposed to rotate. Looking at one of the source images and trying to imagine the ship without the strap on engine and mini wings and it looks like the nose is disproportionately big compared to the body of the ship. So I guess the engine and wings have to be there to balance it out, but they look tacked on.
Anyway, that's why I don't like the aesthetic of the K-wing based on the artwork. The miniature looks slightly better but not by much :/
Still, it's possible the pictures aren't doing the mini justice and looks better in person; that and there are still upgrades, pilot cards and so forth to be revealed, so no rush to yay or nay on it.
I have issues with the K-Wing because this visualization of it does not match the description of it in the BFC at all, or the further description by K-Mac, who created the thing.
Wins are supposed to be swept and staggered, there were no fixed weapons, just ordinance hardpoints on the wings, and the pilot and bombadier sat front and back, not side by side.
I'm kinda so so about the K-wing design itself but seeing it in miniature form sort of makes it seem alot cooler so I find myself really liking it. Coincidentally it looks like a cross between a Y-wing and a A10 Warthog to me:)
I can see the whole Car Built For Homer thing with the Wookiee picture, but I think it'll look considerably better when we see the mini close up.
And if it doesn't, you literally only have to chop off one engine and one turret to "fix" it.
It's really grown on me since Friday. But I have to laugh at the arguments about the side by side cockpit. Has everyone forgotten this?:
The K-Wing suffers from the same problem as many other 'EU' or 'legends' ships. The design of Star Wars is based on psychological archetypes, and as such it tries to bring out a specific reaction. Some here seem to think that these ships are meant to answer to military theory or are meant to look "good". Neither is the primary driver behind the movies' design considerations. The ships (among other things) are meant to tell the tale.
EU ships typically don't do that, either because the EU tales are made with a different goal in mind or because the designers are simply not as good as those who worked on the movies.
Good design interacts with the viewer and/or the space around it. While the K-Wing does the latter to some degree, it is completely unclear what its' design is supposed to communicate. That's why it is not very effective. Personally I think it's a pity that, with much better material in the prequels to draw from, like the ARC and Naboo fighter, the creators of this game are scraping the bottom of the barrel filled with questionable EU material. It's probably a commercial decision of some kind.
Holy moly I've worked it out.
http://www.progressiveboink.com/2012/6/14/3084348/the-second-40-worst-rob-liefeld-drawings
Scroll down to number 38.
Completely impractical? Ludicrously proportioned? Countless protrusions of uncertain functionality? Scary-looking but of dubious effectiveness in an actual battle situation? All the weapons you have? I'm worried you might have misheard me, you might have thought I meant bring me a lot of weapons when I mean ALL THE WEAPONS THAT YOU HAVE?
The K-Wing is the Rob Liefeld Drawing Warchild of X-Wing.
Side by side cockpits which are totally separate? Really, the mind boggles.
Here is a reference for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang
And I think the extra winglets of the K-Wing are needed for landing. Although of course it's not the best solution (funtional and aesthetic), but at least they could make sense.
The Twin Mustang is a bad example because it wasn't purpose-designed with two cockpits--it was a stopgap when the US was struggling to develop jet fighters, and they literally just mushed two existing Mustangs together. It made sense from a technological standpoint because it meant virtually no tooling up time and very few production headaches, but from a design standpoint there's a lot of unnecessary duplication involved.
I think a lot of it boils down to, "It's not the ship I've been hoping/saying/predicting it would be and so therefore it is bad."
I've been saying it's the next rebel ship for six months now I wasn't shocked, I did fail to predict the punisher but then so did most people.
It wasn't really a hard prediction, IMO. There just weren't a lot of other good Rebel options.
Comparing the K-wing to the A-10 is an insult. I just hope the K-wing isn't all that great. The poor X-wing is already very limited in competitive play. If the k- wing is good how sad will it be to see more krack-wings (new ninickname, patent pending) than x- wings on the table?
The X-wing has an issue that has nothing to do with the K-wing. I'm sorry you don't like it, but hoping it's not good because you don't want to see it on the table looks a lot like rooting for the decline of a game you (presumably) like and enjoy.
Ties are actual well designed though?
You're complaining about g forces on the pilot and the pilot is at the exact center of mass?
G-Forces on the frame. Engines in the center would make it more difficult to change heading, mass extended away from center (panels) would not only put enormous strain on the frame but also make it very difficult to rotate quickly. Two small centrally located engines combined with large amounts of mass away from center would make the whole thing rotate like it was made of lead, in addition to being very stressful on the frame. The X-Wing on the other hand would make a lot more sense as a space vehicle if the engines and the guns were to trade positions.
Regardless, TIE fighters look cool. X-Wings look cool. I like the way Star Wars can have everything from the sleek aesthetic of the Naboo to the blocky, ugly and purely functional design of the Action VI Transport due to the variety of races and cultures present in its world.
Besides, who knows what "real reasons" there may be behind the design of the K-Wing? Like the F-82, the K-Wing might very well represent an attempt to use "off the shelf" components in order to fill a particular mission. The escape pod front end, the second canopy for the bombardier, the "bolted on" look of the turret, any of these could be a result of nothing more than simple expediency rather than an attempt to make something beautiful. Grab the command section from this ship (planetary lander perhaps), use off the shelf engines to save design costs, it needs a gun so we can add one here but most of its components will need to be external because there is no room inside the command section, have the engineers put together a frame that allows us to attach the engines to the command section and finally add some additional "wings" from one of our gunships that are already designed for hardpoints. Reinforce the whole thing with some unobtainium struts or a force beam of some sort and we have a functional ship that even the creators can't love the look of. Design shortcuts and compromises are ubiquitous in wartime where "good enough soon enough" is far more useful than "perfectly late".
All this is just a long winded way of saying that the Star Wars universe has room for much, MUCH more "silly" designs than the K-Wing and we have seen them on screen. There is really no reason not to just chalk this ship up to "wow, that engineer must have been an alien".
Edited by KineticOperatorI like most of your post, Kinetic, but what's sillier than the K-Wing that was actually on-screen in a movie?
I like most of your post, Kinetic, but what's sillier than the K-Wing that was actually on-screen in a movie?
Lol, you may have me there. Though I have personally always hated the Cloud Car with an intensity all out of proportion to its screen time. :-)
We know the weight of tie solar panels? I always assumed they were super light and felt vindicated by the almost translucent ones in the ep 7 trailer :/
Also it's star wars. Nothing has an RCS system, so we really have no idea how any ship turns.
Tie fighters are designed in a way so that there are exactly two angles of approach that present decent sized targets: The direct sides. And even when approaching the sides the wings protect the pilot. Furthermore, the tie fighter gets points for having almost black wings in a black space and a gray paint job that matches the ships they're deployed from. With their slim profile ties have the best visual camo in the series. However, that doesn't really matter because it's space, everything is done at vast distances where you wouldn't be using your eyes anyways, you'd be using senors. That's why the impaired vision of the wings doesn't matter either.
The Twin Mustang is a bad example because it wasn't purpose-designed with two cockpits--it was a stopgap when the US was struggling to develop jet fighters, and they literally just mushed two existing Mustangs together. It made sense from a technological standpoint because it meant virtually no tooling up time and very few production headaches, but from a design standpoint there's a lot of unnecessary duplication involved.
What about the White knight two?
Then again, that's probably something to do with wingspan a'la voyager. And doesn't have the side by side cockpits we see on the K-wing. Tandem Cockpits are often seen, and many of the bombers, su-27? (can't recall) have double wide cockpits - it's not a terrible jump to just put together a complete seperate cockpit for different types of systems, so you won't have a chance to be in the way of eachother...
Edit: And an example for a front turret under the nose:
That turret is nothing at all like the nose turret on the k-wing, it is on a ship maybe 3 times the size and looks like it was designed as part of the craft, not bolted on as an afterthought.
A turret like that would be faaar less objectionable, and, in fact, has been suggested a couple times in assorted threads this weekend as one of the ways to mod the ship to help fix its aesthetics.
That's funny, since this is a B-17G, The nose turret was bolted on as an afterthought late in the war to cover a gap in its defenses. All models up to the -F had just single 30 cals sticking out of either side of the nose (as you can still see here).
What bugs me about the turret on the K-Wing is that it dangles in space below the rest of the ship rather than integrated into the hull. I thought the dangling turrets on the LAATs (in Attack of the Clones ) looked just as bad.
I like most of your post, Kinetic, but what's sillier than the K-Wing that was actually on-screen in a movie?
Dooku's Solar-Sail propelled ship
Pretty darn silly if you ask me!
To me, the K-wing has a few significant impractical points - turret placement chief among them. I think the external hardpoints make sense- it's easy to see that they would allow for a wider range of loadouts, and quicker re-arm times in-between missions. Modern fighters use internal bays to reduce radar cross section; we have no reason to think that this is an issue for Star Wars universe. Cockpit placement is weird, but that issue is hardly unique to the K-wing.
But let's not pretend that your average star wars ship is a practical starfighter. There are tons of poor design features across the various ships in star wars. Cockpit placement has always bugged me; X-wing pilots can't see below them, down in front of their nose, and have a needlessly obstructed rear view. TIE fighter cockpits make more sense, but then there are the huge panels on either side obstructing huge portions of their view.
Air-intake resembling engines can be seen on X-wings and B-Wings... Spindly construction of many ships, bad weapon placement, the list goes on. Not liking the K-wing on aesthetic ground I can understand. But judging it on practicality is not fair when there are so many other offenders out there that get no criticism.
Side by side cockpits which are totally separate? Really, the mind boggles.
Here is a reference for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang
And I think the extra winglets of the K-Wing are needed for landing. Although of course it's not the best solution (funtional and aesthetic), but at least they could make sense.
The Twin Mustang is a bad example because it wasn't purpose-designed with two cockpits--it was a stopgap when the US was struggling to develop jet fighters, and they literally just mushed two existing Mustangs together. It made sense from a technological standpoint because it meant virtually no tooling up time and very few production headaches, but from a design standpoint there's a lot of unnecessary duplication involved.
I think a lot of it boils down to, "It's not the ship I've been hoping/saying/predicting it would be and so therefore it is bad."
I've been saying it's the next rebel ship for six months now I wasn't shocked, I did fail to predict the punisher but then so did most people.
It wasn't really a hard prediction, IMO. There just weren't a lot of other good Rebel options.
Comparing the K-wing to the A-10 is an insult. I just hope the K-wing isn't all that great. The poor X-wing is already very limited in competitive play. If the k- wing is good how sad will it be to see more krack-wings (new ninickname, patent pending) than x- wings on the table?
The X-wing has an issue that has nothing to do with the K-wing. I'm sorry you don't like it, but hoping it's not good because you don't want to see it on the table looks a lot like rooting for the decline of a game you (presumably) like and enjoy.
That hurts my predictive record is way ahead of anyone elses
Who is to say the turret on the K-Wing isn't exactly the same thing as the nose turret on the B-17G? An bolt on response to a discovered gap in defenses.
Also, one of my all time favorite vehicles is far more impractical than the K-Wing. The AT-AT. Ground pressure, an additional side to armor (the bottom), poor weapons coverage, complicated motive systems, there are SO many reasons it doesn't work as a military vehicle. But despite all that the AT-AT is just plain COOL in a way that a practical "box on tracks" just wouldn't be. I cannot fault its inclusion in Star Wars, in fact I deeply appreciate it.
We have semi automatic blasters with a rate of fire less than a WW II Garand but no more damage than the old .308, armor that impedes vision but provides little to no protection against blaster fire or explosions, giant pointed helmets worn by crews on internal gunnery stations, or God help us the crowning jewel of impracticality, the light saber. Star Wars is about imagination, I love the variety.
Edited by KineticOperatorAlso, I thought of something that is far more impractical than the K-Wing. The AT-AT. Ground pressure, an additional side to armor (the bottom), poor weapons coverage, complicated motive systems, there are SO many reasons it doesn't work as a military vehicle. But despite all that the AT-AT is just plain COOL in a way that a practical "box on tracks" just wouldn't be I cannot fault its inclusion in Star Wars.
The AT-AT was also designed to scare the ever-loving hell out of whoever it's stomping towards. Some wheeled tank might cause some distress, but a giant lumbering four-legged beast swiveling its head at you? That's cause for retreat.
I like most of your post, Kinetic, but what's sillier than the K-Wing that was actually on-screen in a movie?
The LAAT/i? (One of my favourite vehicles in the saga, but it's also a mass of ball turrets, separate cockpits and bolt on rockets. What it's got going for it is not blocking its own arcs, which even I can't defend the K-wing on.)
The AT-AT was also designed to scare the ever-loving hell out of whoever it's stomping towards. Some wheeled tank might cause some distress, but a giant lumbering four-legged beast swiveling its head at you? That's cause for retreat.
The AT-AT is indefensible on practicallity. There's very little about it that's practical: the guns are all on a head on the front so it can only shoot directly forward, can't turn for ****, center of mass is really high up making it easy to topple, and you can tie its legs up. The AT-TE's what a functional AT-AT might look like.
But we all love the AT-AT because it's so freakin' cool. It's case in point for how Star Wars design works. What it boils down to is if you like the look of it or not.
I've been saying it's the next rebel ship for six months now I wasn't shocked, I did fail to predict the punisher but then so did most people.
Hey, nobody can blame anyone for not predicting the Punisher. It's a nice ship but SWGB is waaay left field.
Edited by TIE Pilot
Side by side cockpits which are totally separate? Really, the mind boggles.
Here is a reference for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang
And I think the extra winglets of the K-Wing are needed for landing. Although of course it's not the best solution (funtional and aesthetic), but at least they could make sense.
The Twin Mustang is a bad example because it wasn't purpose-designed with two cockpits--it was a stopgap when the US was struggling to develop jet fighters, and they literally just mushed two existing Mustangs together. It made sense from a technological standpoint because it meant virtually no tooling up time and very few production headaches, but from a design standpoint there's a lot of unnecessary duplication involved.
I think a lot of it boils down to, "It's not the ship I've been hoping/saying/predicting it would be and so therefore it is bad."
I've been saying it's the next rebel ship for six months now I wasn't shocked, I did fail to predict the punisher but then so did most people.
It wasn't really a hard prediction, IMO. There just weren't a lot of other good Rebel options.
Comparing the K-wing to the A-10 is an insult. I just hope the K-wing isn't all that great. The poor X-wing is already very limited in competitive play. If the k- wing is good how sad will it be to see more krack-wings (new ninickname, patent pending) than x- wings on the table?
The X-wing has an issue that has nothing to do with the K-wing. I'm sorry you don't like it, but hoping it's not good because you don't want to see it on the table looks a lot like rooting for the decline of a game you (presumably) like and enjoy.
That hurts my predictive record is way ahead of anyone elses
If we are really looking for an in-universe justifcation of the side-by-side cockpit, we already have the cloud car.
Who is to say the turret on the K-Wing isn't exactly the same thing as the nose turret on the B-17G? An bolt on response to a discovered gap in defenses.
Also, one of my all time favorite vehicles is far more impractical than the K-Wing. The AT-AT. Ground pressure, an additional side to armor (the bottom), poor weapons coverage, complicated motive systems, there are SO many reasons it doesn't work as a military vehicle. But despite all that the AT-AT is just plain COOL in a way that a practical "box on tracks" just wouldn't be. I cannot fault its inclusion in Star Wars, in fact I deeply appreciate it.
We have semi automatic blasters with a rate of fire less than a WW II Garand but no more damage than the old .308, armor that impedes vision but provides little to no protection against blaster fire or explosions, giant pointed helmets worn by crews on internal gunnery stations, or God help us the crowning jewel of impracticality, the light saber. Star Wars is about imagination, I love the variety.
I remember playing Empire Strikes Back for the NES. In the Battle of Hoth mission, the AT-ATs went and included a tail gun becuase weapon coverage was so bad (I think they based it on an Atari game that had the same issue).
That hurts my predictive record is way ahead of anyone elses
Side by side cockpits which are totally separate? Really, the mind boggles.
Here is a reference for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_F-82_Twin_Mustang
And I think the extra winglets of the K-Wing are needed for landing. Although of course it's not the best solution (funtional and aesthetic), but at least they could make sense.
The Twin Mustang is a bad example because it wasn't purpose-designed with two cockpits--it was a stopgap when the US was struggling to develop jet fighters, and they literally just mushed two existing Mustangs together. It made sense from a technological standpoint because it meant virtually no tooling up time and very few production headaches, but from a design standpoint there's a lot of unnecessary duplication involved.
I think a lot of it boils down to, "It's not the ship I've been hoping/saying/predicting it would be and so therefore it is bad."
I've been saying it's the next rebel ship for six months now I wasn't shocked, I did fail to predict the punisher but then so did most people.
It wasn't really a hard prediction, IMO. There just weren't a lot of other good Rebel options.
Comparing the K-wing to the A-10 is an insult. I just hope the K-wing isn't all that great. The poor X-wing is already very limited in competitive play. If the k- wing is good how sad will it be to see more krack-wings (new ninickname, patent pending) than x- wings on the table?
The X-wing has an issue that has nothing to do with the K-wing. I'm sorry you don't like it, but hoping it's not good because you don't want to see it on the table looks a lot like rooting for the decline of a game you (presumably) like and enjoy.
If we are really looking for an in-universe justifcation of the side-by-side cockpit, we already have the cloud car.