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.

OK.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:Rockets still have functioning wings.

The SR is supposed to be VTOL, but its design prevents this.

The thrust needed to carry a squad full of marines and a dreadnought would need to be off the charts.

The fuel it would consume would give it a flight time of about 21 seconds.

If it were made more like a helicopter, you might have a point, but it is supposed to be a jet powered aircraft.

The fuselage is not designed for high speed travel, or even atmospheric entry and exit.

OK so let's see what you base your statements on.
What's the SR fuel/Power/lift ratio? What is the energy conversion of the fuel it uses?
What material is the fuselarge made from? What power allows it to be VTOL? What gravitational stabilizers is it using? What heat resistant properties does the skin of the craft have.
You know none of these. Yet you make statements like they are facts. The flyers can all be reasonably explained. The ground vehicals are lazy and badly designed, so much so they could not work. They are also based on things we know NOW. But remember this is just my own opinion.

So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

I did not say they weren't lazy. If you read earlier posts I bemoan the ST for looking like a brick. I never said they had super duper engines I just gave reasonable explanations as to how they may work for those that do not like them of which many have posted.

But on one thing you are right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.

So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.

Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..

Forgive me but i think all realism was removed when it was decided it would be set in the 41st millenium, the idea is it's fictional. After 40,000 years of development, a tank may well be able to work in mud i feel.

You know, if the stormraven's wings can't provide lift, those 4 verticle thrusters sure look like they can. Jet VTOL something we get in the 21st century, which is why I personally can swallow the idea of those VTOL jets providing enough stabilizing force to balance the ship during high speed flight against gravity. It couches neatly into my personal ideas of HSWit40M. I mean, as we learn more about tech some older SciFi ideas start to seem silly (gamma radiation crating all those Marvel supes, for example), but the Marine flyers are playing with the current state of jet hovering and bloating them out. It's the jets that keep those flyers up, not wingspan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Forgive me but i think all realism was removed when it was decided it would be set in the 41st millenium,

You would be wrong, but this was already covered a few times in this topic so I won't belabor the point any more than you have.

loota boy wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.

So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.

Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..

It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea wat any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.

variable wrote:

You would be wrong, but this was already covered a few times in this topic so I won't belabor the point any more than you have.

Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong, considering the uncountable variants of time and space, with a time span of over 40,000 years into the future, in my opinion there can be no way to compare that to the present day's physical laws.

Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong,

Do the rules of gravity apply unless explained away with hover tech, flying, lump-jets, etc? Yes. Are 40k units for the most part humanoid? Yes. Has the physical universe changed fundamentally from the previous 40,000 years? No. Is pretty much every planet the armies in the 40k universe fight on an Earth-like planet? Yes. Are the rules written with the assumption implicit that we play in earth like environs? Yes. Plus many good points that were made before I started posting under this topic.

Earth-based "Realism" is the basis of every form of space opera, in fact much more so than in hard science fiction. If Joe Haldeman wrote 40k there would be a different vehicle for every conceivable terrain and grav type or at least one planet's Power Armor would turn into another planets bare min Survival Gear with Terrible Consequences for Falling Down. Without the assumption that we are playing on M type planets (which is a huge suspension of disbelief buoyed by 100 years of science fiction canon) then absolutely NONE of the units in 40k make sense except maybe the pre-reimagined Necrons. Once you start explaining away obvious mistakes with silly midichlorian-like explanations you open up a huge can of worms. I mean, if the G on the planets is low enough that a Chimera would not sink low enough to ground out, what it to keep it from hitting a pebble at high speed and launching 20' into the air and landing on its top?

Obviously we make restrictions for game playability, limiting weapon range, impossible turning radii for vehicles moving at speed, etc., but the tread size on a chimera is purely an aesthetic choice. For the same reason, having a little Necron dude punching buttons like he's Sulu at the Helm instead of being part of the ship he's controlling doesn't make sense within the story they established around Necrons. If you build a narrative you need to be logically consistent within it. It may look cool to those who think hippos could logically be transported on a skateboard, but it doesn't make sense within the assumptions that provide the foundation for the game we're all playing.

variable wrote:

Surely it's an opinion rather than simply right or wrong,

I mean, if the G on the planets is low enough that a Chimera would not sink low enough to ground out, what it to keep it from hitting a pebble at high speed and launching 20' into the air and landing on its top?

It may look cool to those who think hippos could logically be transported on a skateboard, but it doesn't make sense within the assumptions that provide the foundation for the game we're all playing.

Now that is funny. Lol.

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.

So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.

Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..

It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea what any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.

Sir, please don't insult me. If i've appeared to be rude to you, then forgive me, for that was not my intention. We can talk about this in friendly matter.

OT:

Ciaphas wrote:Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little.

And i think it'd probably be a lot simpler to give the stormraven an appropriate wingspan and balance the craft a little so that it wasn't so front heavy, rather than just relying on super-duper engines to keep it in the air. Even if these future engines can keep it off the ground, why not use the future engines AND give it a sensible wingspan and balance? If i need to chop some meat with a knife, and i use a dull knife and just swing the knife at the meat really hard, then yes, i cut the meat. But why not just use a nice, sharp knife to cut the meat, without having to expend so much energy to cut it? (The knife being the design and the force being, well, the force)

I must be blunt: this argument is asinine.

The logical side of things:

Warhammer 40k table top is a game.

It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.

Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.

The SciFi side of things:

Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future

Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??

The realistic side of things:

You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.

Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????

Proioxis© wrote:I must be blunt: this argument is asinine.

The logical side of things:

Warhammer 40k table top is a game.

It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.

Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.

The SciFi side of things:

Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future

Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??

The realistic side of things:

You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.

Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????

It doesn't matter if it's set a billion years into the future. That is not the point.

The point is that the tech is very similar to ours. Granted, there are far superior materials involved, but that does not change the fact that certain designs have become obsolete for very good reasons and certain laws of physics don't change, no matter what year it is. A gun is a gun, a tank is a tank, and flying vehicles still have to obey the laws of aerodynamics and physics.

I must be blunt: this argument is asinine.

I agree. There is no reason people should not be able to kvetch about things that irk them about certain 40k models. I should be able to complain all I want over how illogical the new Necron codex is.

You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.

Nonsense. This is Space Opera we're talking about. If we were looking at this scientifically the differences would be so far off the charts as to be incomprehensible. The vision of the future put forth by GW is a couple hundred years of tech advances at the absolute max! Then 38 millenia of stagnation and a bunch of anthropomorphized alien races that have been balanced to basically fight and tech out where the humans do. Any argument that we are actually conceptualizing life 40k in the future needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.

Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/

No, but no one is doing that. It's a strong man because you don't understand the tiny insignificant thing people are kvetching over. In this case if someone made a model holding a gun that looked and acted just like the M82.50 but gave it a blunderbuss barrel, yes, I would say that doesn't make sense. If someone made a figure with a shoulder mounted fire-lance, I could see the argument for the change based on our better understanding that small arms are easily adaptable to being carried.

loota boy wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:

Ciaphas wrote:

loota boy wrote:So you don't think that it's lazy design to make a flier that looks utterly absurd by modern knowledge, and then just explain it away by saying "Oh, it has super-duper engines from the future that make it work?"

I personally have no beef with the stormraven. Or the chimera. When you play the game, it requires a little suspension of disbelief. Some abandonment of verisimilitude. Everything is made to be visually appeasing, and if that means pissing off some guy who knows enough about tanks to get put off by the treads on a chimera, then so be it.

Your right if you know anything about tanks it does piss you off.

So, just tell yourself that the chimera has some super-duper tread design that moves the treads up and down when it starts to sink into the mud. The imperial forces designed the tank so that the armor could always protect the highly fragile tracks, so they cover as much of it as possible. When the tank starts to sink, the tracks push down and away from the tank, allowing the necessary amount to sink while still being covered by the armor.

Seems a whole lot more plausible to me than stormravens having super-duper engines that would require massive amounts of power to run, rather than just making the wingspan an appropriate length..

It gets to hard to keep trying to explain aerodynamics and VTOL to someone who obviously has no idea what any of it means. But anyway thanks for showing us your explanation of how tanks in 38000 years time overcome grounding issues. Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little. But then I dont have your insight.

Sir, please don't insult me. If i've appeared to be rude to you, then forgive me, for that was not my intention. We can talk about this in friendly matter.

OT:

Ciaphas wrote:Me I think its better to simply allow room for the tracks to work aka the normal way and maybe widen them a little.

And i think it'd probably be a lot simpler to give the stormraven an appropriate wingspan and balance the craft a little so that it wasn't so front heavy, rather than just relying on super-duper engines to keep it in the air. Even if these future engines can keep it off the ground, why not use the future engines AND give it a sensible wingspan and balance? If i need to chop some meat with a knife, and i use a dull knife and just swing the knife at the meat really hard, then yes, i cut the meat. But why not just use a nice, sharp knife to cut the meat, without having to expend so much energy to cut it? (The knife being the design and the force being, well, the force)

No insult intended.
But seriously you have a problem with the flyers OK. I don't. I have a problem with the design of guard vehicals being based on unworkable designs. IE not possible. You don't. I do not have to have a problem with everything in order to not like the vehicals. No matter how you paint it the vehical designs of the IG are not workable. Period. Its not me its unchangeable physics. I cannot help it if GW have made something that is unable to function in the real world as so spoils the asthehetics of the game for me and it seems many others. Now you canmake a brick fly with everything myself and others have said and you can not make the IG vehicals work.
You can shout all day and night that a piece of lead is gold. But when morning comes its still plain old lead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Proioxis© wrote:I must be blunt: this argument is asinine.

The logical side of things:

Warhammer 40k table top is a game.

It was designed as such, so scale would be out of the question. To the same effect, production value
is taken into consideration as scale models = larger models = more plastic = more $$.

Also in regards to design, it was meant to be aesthetically appealing. The main purpose of designing it to
be appealing is for immersion purposes.

The SciFi side of things:

Warhammer 40k is set in THE YEAR 41,000 - thats 38,988 or thirty eight thousand, nine hundred eighty eight years into the future

Have you any concept of the progression of modern technology just in the past mere one hundred years alone??

The realistic side of things:

You're bringing into question similarities between the physical aspects of two completely irrelevant technologies; pieces of equipment
from the future that far succeed anything modern technology could ever aspire to compete with, making this argument utterly moot and
illogical.

Can you honestly tell me that it makes sense to directly compare a 742 year old fire lance to a M82 .50 and then come back and tell me the fire lance doesn't
make sense/isn't realistically on par with modern guns because it doesn't have an auto-gas loading mechanism or detachable box magazine?????

Have you not read any of the previous 8 pages ALL your points have been covered.
IE just because its a game it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its set in the future it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its fantasy it doesn't have to be realistic.
Its cheaper to make smaller models.
Its aesthetically appealing, it doesn't have to e realistic.
Its got aliens and monsters, it doesn't have to be realistic.
Etc etc etc.
All the above have been well covered. And the fact remains its all smoke screen for poor vision and planning and design of the game and vehicals. For some of you your arguments are so apologetic and sickofantic that if GW released a turd and called it a tank you would all stand up and bark reasons why the rest of us should ignore its just a turd and understand that its just a heroic scale SciFi game.

Oh wait they already have......

I always thought that the engines on Imperial vehicles were powerful enough, and the tracks durable enough, that they could literally buzzsaw through any obstacle by putting immense force into it.

Like the mounting-a-curb example for the Chimera - I can see it bumping up against the curb, then the engine roaring, and then either the Chimera sliding up on top of it (because there's a fuckload of traction still on the ground) or tearing the curb to smithereens and moving on (because of sheer engine power and durability).

EDIT:
Or the mud example:
The chimera sinks in up to its ears. The engine roars. Upon gunning the engine, the Chimera's tracks bite hard into the mud and grind the tank out through sheer brutal force. Sort of like how the entire Imperium operates.

DeathReaper wrote:Rockets still have functioning wings.

The SR is supposed to be VTOL, but its design prevents this.

The thrust needed to carry a squad full of marines and a dreadnought would need to be off the charts.

The fuel it would consume would give it a flight time of about 21 seconds.

If it were made more like a helicopter, you might have a point, but it is supposed to be a jet powered aircraft.

The fuselage is not designed for high speed travel, or even atmospheric entry and exit.

Landspeeders.

That is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

McNinja wrote:It isn't just that they would work in our current time. Sure, they'd work, but the designs are so inefficient, so dumb, that you can't help but notice. There are reasons why no tank has huge flat sides or massive exposed treads, we've learned lessons throughout history that have taught us certain things about physics and vehicles that makes those designs obsolete.

If we ignore the toy-like dimensions such as the treads not covering the side skirt armour, or the turret being too small to house the breach of that massive weapon, then the Leman Russ works fine. While it may have massive flat sides, it is deployed in such numbers that anyone in a position to take a shot at the side armour will be coming under fire from other Leman Russ tanks. Unlike modern tanks that have to operate in small numbers, a Leman Russ would be deployed as part of a line of thousands of tanks stretching over kilometers in every direction.

Kaldor wrote:

Landspeeders.

That is all.

That isn't all, there's also servo skulls, shield drones, Land Speeders, etc. which all look like they could be built now from a physical looks perspective, but the tech isn't remotely comparable to current tech.

snooggums wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

Landspeeders.

That is all.

That isn't all, there's also servo skulls, shield drones, Land Speeders, etc. which all look like they could be built now from a physical looks perspective, but the tech isn't remotely comparable to current tech.

An ionocraft or ion-propelled aircraft, commonly known as a lifter or hexalifter, is an electrohydrodynamic (EHD) device (utilizing an electrical phenomenon known as the Biefeld–Brown effect) to produce thrust in the air, without requiring any combustion or moving parts. The term "Ionocraft" dates back to the 1960s, an era in which EHD experiments were at their peak. In its basic form, it simply consists of two parallel conductive electrodes, one in the form of a fine wire and another which may be formed of either a wire grid, tubes or foil skirts with a smooth round surface. When such an arrangement is powered up by high voltage in the range of a few kilovolts, it produces thrust. The ionocraft forms part of the EHD thruster family, but is a special case in which the ionisation and accelerating stages are combined into a single stage.

The device is a popular science fair project for students. It is also popular among anti-gravity or so-called "electrogravitics" proponents, especially on the Internet, where it is commonly referred to as a lifter.

The term "lifter" is an accurate description because it is not an anti-gravity device, but produces lift in the same sense as a rocket from the reaction force from driving the ionized air downward. Much like a rocket or a jet engine, the force that an ionocraft generates is oriented consistently along its own axis, regardless of the surrounding gravitational field. Claims of the device working in a vacuum also have been disproved.[1]

Ionocraft require many safety precautions due to the high voltage required for their operation, and also the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease due to the inhalation of their ionised air product, ozone. A large subculture has grown up around this simple EHD thrusting device and its physics are now known to a much better extent.

In 38000 years time.........