Subject:
|
Re: New Fad?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Apr 2003 02:57:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
972 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > I'd also want two other minimum criteria - each ship has to have an opening
> > cockpit and working landing gear. That would make the dioramas look better
>
> Ok. I have to strongly disagree here. In my legoverse landing gear is an easily
> exploitable weakness on military ships. Landing gear on my military ships (any
> size that can land) is always built directly into the hull of the ship to
> eliminate it as a (fictitious) structural weakness.
Whoa! My bad. I didn't mean to imply that fixed landing gear was
unacceptable, it's totally fine by me. What I meant was that I viewed the
presence of landing gear of some kind as mandatory.
I've made fighters without landing gear at all, it's just that they don't
land on tarmac or in flat hangar bays - they dock into docking bays on a
carrier, hence they have a docking attachment.
Cheers,
Paul
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: New Fad?
|
| (...) easily (...) (any (...) Um... Perhaps my reply came across a little more argumentative than I intended. (...) I see, that makes much more sense than my original assumption. (...) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.space)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Fad?
|
| (...) Ok. I have to strongly disagree here. In my legoverse landing gear is an easily exploitable weakness on military ships. Landing gear on my military ships (any size that can land) is always built directly into the hull of the ship to eliminate (...) (22 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.space)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
