more shiny!
(shininess may vary from movie to movie. Viewer discretion advised)
My only problem with the Resistance Heavy Bomber...
3 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:The naboo ships were shiny and clean looking because 1990's cgi couldn't do textures very well, so if they ml of the universe, not the cgi budget.
... I'm not trying to be rude, but your saying that 1977 CGI was better than 1990?
I always understood Naboo was shiny and clean because they lived on a watery-world. They had the resources to keep it clean.
Just now, Ccwebb said:... I'm not trying to be rude, but your saying that 1977 CGI was better than 1990?
I always understood Naboo was shiny and clean because they lived on a watery-world. They had the resources to keep it clean.
Uh, they didn't have cgi in 1977, they used physical models.
46 minutes ago, HolySorcerer said:
Uh, they didn't have cgi in 1977, they used physical models.
The 'vector graphics' in ANH were animations drawn on film for the most part, or stills. No CGI. I believe Tron first used CGI in film, and a lot of the effects were still rotoscoped.
The visual asthetic is all over the place. Gritty is key. But the prequels were intended to be pre-war and cleaner. Cgi was crap but i get why they went for something slightly different.
Original Trilogy Visual Language
Mixed
^ unnamed fleet tanker for the win! 40 dollar box for sure.
Like the ARC-170, if it's a prequel starfighter it'll likely be used by the Rebellion. Where would you stat N-1s in relation to Z-95s though? It's kind of like asking for T-Wings when the A-Wing is right there.
I do think LFL is going in the right direction by drawing look n' feel from world war two. It inspired much of the original trillogy, so it makes sense to draw upon it to make "more Star Wars", since the common arguement is that the Prequels weren't.
N-1 Naboo Starfighter
att 2
agi 2
hull 3
shield 2
focus, TL, BR
Torpedo, Astromech
certainly nothing like a Z-95
6 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:
*Struggles to hold down vomit*
How dare you compare that ******* naboo garbage to the P-51D Mustang.
I'm glad im not the only one who hates the n1. [REDACTED] The n1
There is a P-38 Lightning in the Star Wars universe....Utapau's Porax-38.
10 hours ago, fok12 said:Well, to me it looks like a submarine if you look it from above.
To me, a skinny Zeppelin trying to carry a high-rise.
I probably wouldn't mind the design if the fuselage and the ventral "tower" weren't so much in contrast visually.
The bottom half is solid and rigid, with a real weight to its aesthetic that makes it look like a brick to manoeuvre - yet the top is sleek and slender with a tapering profile that gives it a more streamlined look (exacerbated by those delicate winglets).
It really does feel like the thought process was: "let's do homage to the Nebulon (or perhaps B-Wing... or both), but also make it look like WWII bomber - just slap one a-top the other, done.
I'd probably prefer if either the ventral section was uniformly scaled down by a third to a half OR the fuselage was half as long a twice as fat (and thickening the winglets to keep with the chunkiness) - with the latter of these two being the my preferred (given is heavy bomber role).
- - - - -
With the amount of times I've written bomb, bombs and bomber in the last few days, I hope some search-bot hasn't put me on a watchlist!
13 hours ago, DampfGecko said:more please, FFG! Emulate WWII as hard as you can!
they already did with wings of war, and then sold that IP and it continues on as Wings of glory. In fact, I think some of the WOW minis will even fit on the X-wing pegs.... so Spitfire model as a stand in for an X-wing might be possible.
As for it in X-wing, yes! I'm all for it.
I just happen to hate the B/sf-17's design. there's so much they could have done with it and made it look more B-17, less nebulon, but more star wars... like the K-wing, for instance.
9 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:Yes, they were terrible movies. In fact, they didn't have even one redeeming feature. So why do you want one of the terrible ships from those terrible movies?
Yes, I'm a grumpy old man. Get off my lawn, and take your terrible cgi ships and characters with you!
Just wait until you try legion, like it, and a year from now, you go to the local store for a casual tourney, plop your nicely painted stormtroopers down for your first game, and then realize with horror your opponent is fielding the new Gungan army with broken bombs and proceeds to table you....
Edited by FlyingAnchors7 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:Just wait until you try legion, like it, and a year from now, you go to the local store for a casual tourney, plop your nicely painted stormtroopers down for your first game, and then realize with horror your opponent is fielding the new Gungan army with broken bombs and proceeds to table you....
You joke, but if somebody in FFG on the Legion team loves Galactic Battlegrounds (the Source of the TIE Punisher, too) as much as they do Galaxies for X-Wing...
4 hours ago, Boom Owl said:
The visual asthetic is all over the place. Gritty is key. But the prequels were intended to be pre-war and cleaner. Cgi was crap but i get why they went for something slightly different.
That is, after all, literally exactly what they said in interviews around that time. The prequels were SUPPOSED to be 'shinier' and 'cleaner' than the OT - at least on Coruscant, anyway (which we never even saw in the OT) - because they were supposed to be showing the 'gilded' center of the Republic at the height of its power.
The contrast to OT ships was entirely the point - even made within the same movie, by ships in the outer rim being so much more worn down.
2 minutes ago, UnitOmega said:You joke, but if somebody in FFG on the Legion team loves Galactic Battlegrounds (the Source of the TIE Punisher, too) as much as they do Galaxies for X-Wing...
Oh if gungan's become a thing in Legion I'm definitely buying them for a side army.
The cringe/hilarity factor is just to amusing.
They'll make defeat satisfying for the opponent and myself, and when I win the occassional game it'll just be even more funny.
I'll never lose. (well maybe gameplay wise, but not attitude wise)
17 hours ago, HolySorcerer said:The naboo ships were shiny and clean looking because 1990's cgi couldn't do textures very well, so if they made everything perfectly smooth and shiny their computers could render it easily. Star wars is full of stupid looking ships and dumb designs, but none of them are perfectly smooth and shiny, because they were designed to fit into the look and feel of the universe, not the cgi budget.
Look man, it's pretty clear that you're not going to convince me that the prequels have anything worth keeping, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Not only would I object to the naboo starfighter, but I'd probably just be done with xwing if they went into the prequel nonsense. The game is already an imbalanced mess, why stick around for an imbalanced mess with ships I hate?
How can one man be so wrong?
Do I get it right, you are saying that rendering shiny, insanely reflective objects is easier than using a gray texture? And that making objects streamlined and round is easier than using more angular shapes?
Okay.
And obviously there are reasons both in-universe, and stylistic out-of-universe choices that made Naboo ships look like they do, but no point wasting space on someone blinded by hatred.
I think you should quit X-wing as you have missed a prequel ship already and the second one is coming in the next wave.
Because of people like you who will whine at every change and repeat venomous lies we are stuch forever with idiotic repaints of X-wings and TIE Fighters. You are the reason Star Wars will be another franchise run to the ground with soulless copies watered down with every iteration instead of being the catalyst of creativity it always was with Lucas at the helm.
PS
I'm just going to leave this hear for the fans. I had the opportunity to work on this thing for a few days.
13 hours ago, GrimmyV said:The 'vector graphics' in ANH were animations drawn on film for the most part, or stills. No CGI. I believe Tron first used CGI in film, and a lot of the effects were still rotoscoped.
Not quite - the Death Star breifing animation was a genuine computer animation (state of the art for 1977), done by a man named Larry Cuba.
http://cinetropolis.net/sta-wars-and-the-mystery-of-the-moving-death-star-dish/
http://www.ballyalley.com/articles_and_news/animating_the_death_star_trench.pdf
18 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:I'm just going to leave this hear for the fans. I had the opportunity to work on this thing for a few days.
Man, resistance bomber will be perfect for nose art with that huge fin.
28 minutes ago, Rft said:Not quite - the Death Star breifing animation was a genuine computer animation (state of the art for 1977), done by a man named Larry Cuba.
http://cinetropolis.net/sta-wars-and-the-mystery-of-the-moving-death-star-dish/
http://www.ballyalley.com/articles_and_news/animating_the_death_star_trench.pdf
Oops, sorry Larry. That was a lot of hard work, and the computer was such a dinosaur that it took 12 hrs to stop motion a 40 second sequence. State of the art 4 decades ago tho.
On 9/9/2017 at 1:41 PM, GreenDragoon said:What if I told you that it's not undersized...?
you'd be wrong.
10 hours ago, eMeM said:PS
10 hours ago, PanchoX1 said:you'd be wrong.
Please have a look here in this thread and present your argument why I'm wrong
4 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:Please have a look here in this thread and present your argument why I'm wrong
Read it. And you make a convincing presentation. My hate for the bomber scale had been lessened. Somewhat....