Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Put a mattress on the floor, disco ball from the top hatch, nice stereo system.

Imperial Party Wagon.

insaniak wrote:I very much like the chassis on it. Very nicely detailed (although the side doors appear to be lacking hinges... )

The wheels still don't work for me... maybe. I'm wondering now if some of that is just the picture angles, because it actually looks pretty awesome in the rear shot. Still thinking the half-track version will look better, though.

The wheels look too cramped. If you look at real wheeled armored vehicles the tend to have more clearance to better allow for wheels turning and bouncing. Visually the area on the rear just above the rear tire looks like it should be vertically thicker and thats a consequence of rear downward angled section starting maybe a little too soon from the centerline of the side than they might have wanted. Contributing to that cramped look is that the rear tire sticks out past the rear armor, when given the boxiness, it'd tend to look better with the armor coming out to the point where it's tangential to the rear wheel.

That said, I'll probably buy a number of these to complement the wheeled chimeras my Arbites use.

cpt_Molo wrote:Today I have some pictures for You

Oliver - one of our fans - send them. Flamer and Dozer are our designs

Flamers look a bit big, but the dozer blade is magic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the new APC kit - the chassis looks great. Side doors need a little bit of work (hinges, as mentioned) and the wheels do look a little off. The Aliens APC (which everyone loves) has much larger wheels proportionately.

If i had the money, i would surely buy 6 of those, and use them as am excuse to build my Formosa Guard list... Any plans for a not dread in the same lines soon?

scipio.au wrote:Flamers look a bit big, but the dozer blade is magic!

The dozer blade is fantastic. I own a few of them, and they've gotten quite a bit of attention from other gamers.
As for the size of the weapons, I'd agree, but I've been using the flamers as flamestorm cannons and the gatling cannons as punisher cannons. They work great in those roles, and I've been very happy with them.

aka_mythos wrote:The wheels look too cramped. If you look at real wheeled armored vehicles the tend to have more clearance to better allow for wheels turning and bouncing. Visually the area on the rear just above the rear tire looks like it should be vertically thicker and thats a consequence of rear downward angled section starting maybe a little too soon from the centerline of the side than they might have wanted. Contributing to that cramped look is that the rear tire sticks out past the rear armor, when given the boxiness, it'd tend to look better with the armor coming out to the point where it's tangential to the rear wheel.

I agree a little more clearance over the wheels would be good. Would it be difficult to create a small 'suspension' conversion to raise the body a little?

Clang wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The wheels look too cramped. If you look at real wheeled armored vehicles the tend to have more clearance to better allow for wheels turning and bouncing. Visually the area on the rear just above the rear tire looks like it should be vertically thicker and thats a consequence of rear downward angled section starting maybe a little too soon from the centerline of the side than they might have wanted. Contributing to that cramped look is that the rear tire sticks out past the rear armor, when given the boxiness, it'd tend to look better with the armor coming out to the point where it's tangential to the rear wheel.

I agree a little more clearance over the wheels would be good. Would it be difficult to create a small 'suspension' conversion to raise the body a little?

Only if you use mini-hydrolics that you can remote control while it is on the table.

!Attention!
!Contest!

Our New APC storms in! But we haven't named it yet!
Maybe YOU can help us?

Send your proposition on sales@bitspudlo.com to 27.07.2012

After that date, Bitspudlo team members will choose the final name for the transporter.

Winner will get a free model of our APC as soon as it will be released!

GOOD LUCK!

d-usa wrote:

Clang wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The wheels look too cramped. If you look at real wheeled armored vehicles the tend to have more clearance to better allow for wheels turning and bouncing. Visually the area on the rear just above the rear tire looks like it should be vertically thicker and thats a consequence of rear downward angled section starting maybe a little too soon from the centerline of the side than they might have wanted. Contributing to that cramped look is that the rear tire sticks out past the rear armor, when given the boxiness, it'd tend to look better with the armor coming out to the point where it's tangential to the rear wheel.

I agree a little more clearance over the wheels would be good. Would it be difficult to create a small 'suspension' conversion to raise the body a little?

Only if you use mini-hydrolics that you can remote control while it is on the table.

I think he means to move the the joint where the wheels mount to the chasis lower so the vehicle is higher. On a real vehicle that'd be the suspension... he's just suggesting a way to incorporate detail to fix the spacing.

cpt_Molo wrote:
!Attention!
!Contest!

Our New APC storms in! But we haven't named it yet!
Maybe YOU can help us?

Send your proposition on sales@bitspudlo.com to 27.07.2012

After that date, Bitspudlo team members will choose the final name for the transporter.

Winner will get a free model of our APC as soon as it will be released!

GOOD LUCK!

Very cool!

A bit Off-Topic: You should put a link to your storefront in your signature!

call it the Acomadore

Seeing as the Tank APC = Rhino... and the Tank APC with teeth = Razor Back, perhaps some other form of large, charging beast...

Bison maybe? (I was thinking the America Bison, not Asian) or a deviation on it like 'RAZOR BISON' (which sounds lame).

You guys should probably email him your entries, as that's what he asked you to do and to keep this thread on topic.

Email sent... consider your ideas stolen.

Yup, there go my suggestions, hope they are to your liking!

Just playing in photoshop...

Would it be horrible to admit Insaniak's photoshopmod looks really good? The portions of the wheels that are implied to be covered up by the chassis don't seem to intersect with any integral machinery (engines/doors/etc).

Actually, the front wheels would be a potential problem because of the angle of the front hull. They would possibly need to protrude out the front... which I think would still look pretty cool.

insaniak wrote:Very nicely detailed (although the side doors appear to be lacking hinges... )

The corners are also chamfered instead of bevelled. Are they not intended to be compatible with Rhino parts?

aka_mythos wrote:The wheels look too cramped. If you look at real wheeled armored vehicles the tend to have more clearance to better allow for wheels turning and bouncing. Visually the area on the rear just above the rear tire looks like it should be vertically thicker and thats a consequence of rear downward angled section starting maybe a little too soon from the centerline of the side than they might have wanted. Contributing to that cramped look is that the rear tire sticks out past the rear armor, when given the boxiness, it'd tend to look better with the armor coming out to the point where it's tangential to the rear wheel.

You just lose too much mass with the Rhino-esque rear end. On a Rhino it works fine because it's visually two track sections sandwiching a central compartment, and it's not unusual for tracks to extend out past the chassis, but on yours you have this massive, monolithic front - which is bloody brilliant; dudes in power armour should be riding around in something that looks as armoured as they are - and thick flanks that just...fades away into weak little hindquarters. Gives it the proportions of a bulldog.

I think you need to either extend the rear another 10mm or drop down to four larger wheels (about half-chassis height or so, would give it similar proportions to a Fennek):





After seeing Insaniak's photoshop, I did another with 35mm wheels front and back:



Also, rather than making alternate versions by plugging stuff into the wheelwells, as appears to be the plan, it may be better futureproofing to make the entire corner sections replaceable between the versions:

Absolutionis wrote:The portions of the wheels that are implied to be covered up by the chassis don't seem to intersect with any integral machinery (engines/doors/etc).

I believe the engines are there, with the exhausts protruding from the tops of the ribbed columns in front.

Why not small wheel in front, bit wheel in back? Give a sense of "back is for move, front is for manouver"...

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:Why not small wheel in front, bit wheel in back? Give a sense of "back is for move, front is for manouver"...

In reality...impractical for military logistics. It would require stocking 2 different sized rims and tires for each vehicle. When a vehicle uses all wheels & tires of the same size you only have to stock 1 size. Also means it doesnt matter which one gets damaged, as they are all the same size. If you have a vehicle with 2 different sizes, and you only have 1 size on hand...your screwed if you get a damaged one of the other size.

In miniature land...sure it could be done. However Id say that since most model companies try to mimic the general style of real military vehicles, a single size all around is better.

It looks fine. Just hurry up and name it so you can take my money! !!

Mad4Minis wrote:

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:Why not small wheel in front, bit wheel in back? Give a sense of "back is for move, front is for manouver"...

In reality...impractical for military logistics. It would require stocking 2 different sized rims and tires for each vehicle. When a vehicle uses all wheels & tires of the same size you only have to stock 1 size. Also means it doesnt matter which one gets damaged, as they are all the same size. If you have a vehicle with 2 different sizes, and you only have 1 size on hand...your screwed if you get a damaged one of the other size.

In miniature land...sure it could be done. However Id say that since most model companies try to mimic the general style of real military vehicles, a single size all around is better.

Make sense, make a lot of sense lol

The bulldog

insaniak wrote:Just playing in photoshop...

I think Insaniak's PhotoShop would be perfect if the back wheels were the same as the front.

They're the same size, you can just see a little more of the rear wheel because of the chassis shape.

insaniak wrote:They're the same size, you can just see a little more of the rear wheel because of the chassis shape.

Where are those wheels from anyways?

Bitspudlo's original pic. I just made them bigger.

Our contest is in a full swing
We received almost 100 propositions and they keep coming

Meanwhile new items are available in our store:

X-92 Bionic Plasma Gun




Nemezis Bionic Cannon




Cyborg equipped with new weapons:






http://bitspudlo.com/t/category/216-bitsbox-dot-eu/237-infantry-weapons-and-accessories

That cannon is the tits might have to outfit some marines with these and just say they are heavy bolters.