16 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:Since that ship is rough to look at on a weekend, I’ll leave this here to cleanse the palate.
The starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit is on the port side. This ship needs to go back to the design department.
58 minutes ago, Pooleman said:The starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit is on the port side. This ship needs to go back to the design department.
I suppose then, that only one of the guns has any internals and that it's carrying an asymmetrical missile stack too?
I'm glad that they labeled the pilot for us, but I can't help but wonder what advantage is gained by having him stand next to the ship during flight.
Edited by nexttwelveexits14 hours ago, weisguy119 said:What’s Disney’s affinity for giant, bat-wing type things on at least one ship from every Star Wars film they release?
They secretly wanted the DC deal not the Marvel one. It's true because I read it on a internet forum.....
7 hours ago, Pooleman said:The starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit is on the port side. This ship needs to go back to the design department.
Maybe it stabilizes the starboard side from its port side position, with the port stabilizer doing its job from the starboard side. Maybe Star Wars gyros don’t work like Earth gyros do. Or maybe someone screwed up.
20 hours ago, Baaa said:So you were adopted then?
Cheers
Baaa
Yep right after my pod crashed on this planet a nice couple called the Kent's took me home.
I’ll leave this for the Scum folks so they don’t feel left out.
Just had a thought, if the Solo movie is a hit, would there be a chance at a sequel or two? And if not, why not? Nobody said the ‘side Story’ movies had to be one shots.
3 hours ago, GrimmyV said:Maybe it stabilizes the starboard side from its port side position, with the port stabilizer doing its job from the starboard side. Maybe Star Wars gyros don’t work like Earth gyros do. Or maybe someone screwed up.
The "Starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit" label points to both port and starboard. Maybe Starboard is a company name, and it's actually a Starboard™ Gyro-Stabilizer Compact Unit.
32 minutes ago, eMeM said:The "Starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit" label points to both port and starboard. Maybe Starboard is a company name, and it's actually a Starboard™ Gyro-Stabilizer Compact Unit.
Lol. I love this explanation.
34 minutes ago, eMeM said:The "Starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit" label points to both port and starboard. Maybe Starboard is a company name, and it's actually a Starboard™ Gyro-Stabilizer Compact Unit.
They make the chips for space phones.
1 hour ago, eMeM said:The "Starboard gyro-stabilizer compact unit" label points to both port and starboard. Maybe Starboard is a company name, and it's actually a Starboard™ Gyro-Stabilizer Compact Unit.
Starboard™ Spaceship Components. For all your spacebound wants and needs!
On 4/15/2018 at 1:17 PM, CMDR Ytterium said:especially on ships made and designed by our glorious empire, doesn't Make sense, Strength through order, not really "imposing wing designs"
TIE Fighter. TIE Bomber. TIE Interceptor. Lambda-class Shuttle. Sentinel-class Shuttle. That's just from the OT movies (in chronological order of appearance - the Sentinel didn't show up until the Special Editions, after all). Wings as a focal point for the visual design is pretty much the defining characteristic of Imperial fighters and shuttles.
I say the only really imposing one is the squint as the generic tie and bomber are just Hs and Tubs respectively.
12 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
I’ll leave this for the Scum folks so they don’t feel left out.
I got mine. But, at 4 feet long, I think it’s a bit out of scale for XWM.
13 hours ago, GrimmyV said:Maybe it stabilizes the starboard side from its port side position, with the port stabilizer doing its job from the starboard side. Maybe Star Wars gyros don’t work like Earth gyros do. Or maybe someone screwed up.
We are getting near explaining the 12 parsecs level
2 hours ago, Commander Kaine said:We are getting near explaining the 12 parsecs level
The lengths that authors and favs have gone.....
it was so obviously an inside joke to show how much of a fraud Solo was, especially with Old Ben giving all those eye rolls. And the novel using Standard Time Parts instead of Parsecs anyway.
so yeah, explaining stupidity in SW is a time honored tradition. Thank you mr. (or ms.) A-wing cut-away artist, for giving us more excuses to super explain away more crap.
Yeah, that's ugly.
Watch it have 3 attack, 1 agility, focus/reinforce/jam/TL, two crew slots and a sensor slot for like 16 points.
22 hours ago, Freeptop said:TIE Fighter. TIE Bomber. TIE Interceptor. Lambda-class Shuttle. Sentinel-class Shuttle. That's just from the OT movies (in chronological order of appearance - the Sentinel didn't show up until the Special Editions, after all). Wings as a focal point for the visual design is pretty much the defining characteristic of Imperial fighters and shuttles.
Please, don't say things that make sense. Your sentiment has no place here.
Also, so help me, well-balanced and functional designs are wasted on you lot. As a nice little litmus test If you think this is an awesome sick design:
and this is ugly and boring:
...you probably don't have a good grasp of aesthetic principles. I'm so baffled by the fact that every two-bit critic thinks they have a better grasp on this stuff than the professional artists and designers who make it.
19 hours ago, Wondergecko said:Please, don't say things that make sense. Your sentiment has no place here.
Also, so help me, well-balanced and functional designs are wasted on you lot. As a nice little litmus test If you think this is an awesome sick design:
and this is ugly and boring:
...you probably don't have a good grasp of aesthetic principles. I'm so baffled by the fact that every two-bit critic thinks they have a better grasp on this stuff than the professional artists and designers who make it.
You have compared a fighter to a hover-tank. That,s about as different as you can get.
That's basically saying this looks stupid...
...because it doesn't look like this.
5 hours ago, Indy_com said:You have compared a fighter to a hover-tank. That,s about as different as you can get.
That's basically saying this looks stupid...
...because it doesn't look like this.
You missed the point, mate.
So for those who have seen Solo now, is this AT-Hauler the same type of ship that air dropped that AT-ST onto the battle field during the beginning, when Han enlists?
I think so, or at least that's the impression I got from the movie.
Yes.
I'm a big fan of the AT-hauler and how it fuses walker asthetics with those of Imperial shuttles. Plus, it's not just for walkers.