13 hours ago, flooze said:

I would not argue with the cockpit location but with the alignment of engine (vector of thrust) and center of mass. When locking at the jmp, I expect that it will be drawn to the left just by firing up the engine. Considering this, it would have quite some flavour to make the outer right maneuvers red and to omit the hard right one.

But back to topic - I play both of the ships and I find the idea of switching the 1&2 maneuvers appealing, even if it would be symmetrical for the HWK with less green.

That's what I'm saying. The YT-2400 looks like it has more off center mass than the JM5k.

Works for me.

Just like, so long as the asymmetrical issue is fixed. Because the HWK-290 is an agile little bird, but the dial just flat out does not show that. If the dial did show that, and hey-ho, it got a 2 firepower, we'd see a lot more HWKs universally.

21 hours ago, flooze said:

I would not argue with the cockpit location but with the alignment of engine (vector of thrust) and center of mass. When locking at the jmp, I expect that it will be drawn to the left just by firing up the engine. Considering this, it would have quite some flavour to make the outer right maneuvers red and to omit the hard right one.

But back to topic - I play both of the ships and I find the idea of switching the 1&2 maneuvers appealing, even if it would be symmetrical for the HWK with less green.

Inertial Dampeners. Without them Nebuln Frigates, Eclipse-class star destroyers and a slew of other ships would just turn in big circles. In addition, the whole thing of "this spaceship can turn left easier because its engine is on the right" is stupid since, in 3d space, it can do a barrel roll (spinning is a good trick...) 180 degrees and turn "right" exactly as easily.

out of the box thinking, but along those same lines as was mentioned the asymmetrical thing would be a problem.. just make use a different dial for the HWK maybe the Kraz one?