| |
In lugnet.space, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
Hi all
I’ve seen Crimson Skies posted to .space before, so I thought I’d see what
you all think. (also post to .military)
|
I’m glad you feel inspired to build Crimson Skies.
However, one of the tenets of the Crimson Skies style is that the planes are
sort of futuristically shaped, yet in a 1942 style. So they do a lot of
rearranging of common aircraft elements from the era.
To be honest, your plane looks good, but it looks like your average airplane. It
doesn’t really say Crimson Skies to me.
$.02
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
Hi all
I’ve seen Crimson Skies posted to .space before, so I thought I’d see what
you all think. (also post to .military)
|
I’m glad you feel inspired to build Crimson Skies.
However, one of the tenets of the Crimson Skies style is that the planes are
sort of futuristically shaped, yet in a 1942 style. So they do a lot of
rearranging of common aircraft elements from the era.
To be honest, your plane looks good, but it looks like your average airplane.
It doesn’t really say Crimson Skies to me.
$.02
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
Wow, the GA himself! Still posting from the barrel in your cell?
Thanks for the reply. But I think I’d disagree on that point--many of the
planes in the game are just regular planes (I bought the game to see what all
the hype was about). For example, the Coyote, Brigand, and Dust Devil are all
conventionally configured.
Now, with that said, I do agree that it’s just your Average Joe plane. Just a
study into the field, really. But I thought it turned out well enough to
present to the community.
Thanks again for the reply. And don’t worry, GA, we’re on our way...
-Andrew
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
For example, the Coyote, Brigand, and Dust Devil are all conventionally
|
Not really. I don’t think you understand what I was trying to point out.
Your plane follows the very typical composition with two large wings forward,
with a standard tail design. It looks like any given forward-prop-driven plane
dating from WW1 to the present.
The Coyote is a fighter-sized pusher prop flying wing, with wingtip verticals.
There’s nothing conventional about that.
The Brigand has the usual large forward wings, but has no conventional tail
design.
I can’t find any pics of the Dust Devil online, but I hope you understand the
point I was trying to make.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Andrew Engstrom wrote:
| |
For example, the Coyote, Brigand, and Dust Devil are all conventionally
|
Not really. I don’t think you understand what I was trying to point out.
Your plane follows the very typical composition with two large wings forward,
with a standard tail design. It looks like any given forward-prop-driven
plane dating from WW1 to the present.
The Coyote is a fighter-sized pusher prop flying wing, with wingtip
verticals. There’s nothing conventional about that.
snip <
The Brigand has the usual large forward wings, but has no conventional tail
design.
snip <
I can’t find any pics of the Dust Devil online, but I hope you understand the
point I was trying to make.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
While I like Andrews plane, and can see where you classify it as ‘conventional’,
my question is - how unconventional is too unconventional?
I know this borders
on threadjacking or bumping, but I’ve been wondering if my
latest bird was *too* far out to
classify as Crimson Skies...
Oh, and Andrew, I really dig the backgrounds
your pictures have. Seems so conventional to have MOCs put up against neutral
backgrounds that the way yours were presented really stand out.
Thanks for
the time,
TRS
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Theodore Sammis II wrote:
| |
While I like Andrews plane, and can see where you classify it as
‘conventional’, my question is - how unconventional is too unconventional?
I know this borders on threadjacking or bumping, but I’ve been wondering if
my latest bird was *too* far
out to classify as Crimson Skies...
|
I don’t think it’s the shape of your plane that makes it a stretch for CS as
much as it’s the high-tech looking weaponry. Exchange that stuff for some large
primitive looking machine guns and I think you’d be a lot closer to the CS
style... making the front canards a bit more squarish would probably also make
it look less futuristic.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Mark Sandlin wrote:
| |
I don’t think it’s the shape of your plane that makes it a stretch for CS as
much as it’s the high-tech looking weaponry. Exchange that stuff for some
large primitive looking machine guns and I think you’d be a lot closer to the
CS style... making the front canards a bit more squarish would probably also
make it look less futuristic.
-Grand Admiral
.space Curator
|
hmmm, bulkier, more primitive guns, I think I can manage that :)
thanks for the input!
TRS
|
|
|
