Subject:
|
Re: New Fad?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Apr 2003 03:25:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Paul Baulch writes:
> 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.
Um... Perhaps my reply came across a little more argumentative than I intended.
> What I meant was that I viewed the
> presence of landing gear of some kind as mandatory.
I see, that makes much more sense than my original assumption.
> 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
-Mike Petrucelli
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New Fad?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 years ago, 9-Apr-03, to lugnet.space)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
