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.

Given the short length of the bridge, having the roadtop this high looks off. In real life, I'd imagine you'd be more likely to have a no arch at all, but putting it at about the height of the bottom support seems like a good compromise.

I'll also echo HBMC's comment and my previous complaint that the scale of your roads isn't right for 40k.

Basically, it doesn't work as a civilian or a military bridge.

Mattlov wrote:Steep side like that can better delineate cover for a game like 40K.

If your road bridge is less than a kilometer long and steep enough that you need to delineate cover, something has gone horribly wrong.

It is a small bridge. The intent with this piece was to make the smallest bridge practical in order to provide a way of having the roads cross rivers, etc while taking up the minimum of table space.

The Pegasus bridge is great but it's huge - 40 feet wide! - and it takes up a lot of table space which may not be desirable. If you want a bridge that large then it's fantastic value.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Those of you that wanted longer, shallow ramps - how does this grab you?

I like the angles on that a lot better than the 45 degree ones in the original, looks like somehting that would actually be traversable

Looks better but need to see in person

That does look better actually.

kenshin620 wrote:Looks better but need to see in person

Prototype won't be long.

Scott-S6 wrote:

kenshin620 wrote:Looks better but need to see in person

Prototype won't be long.

Cool, cant wait

I'm really looking forward to seeing a prototype of this to compare it to the 1st bridge design. I like the 1st one a lot, but a less steep angle would make it possible for vehicles and infantry to sit on the slope without sliding off.

Scott-S6 wrote:Those of you that wanted longer, shallow ramps - how does this grab you?

In which of your current three bridge threads should we answer? See what I mean?

Yeah, I think it's time to consolidate these into one thread, both to reduce confusion, and in fairness to other news posters.

So I'm going to lock this one and the other single-product thread, and would ask that further updates go into the prototype thread.

If you are rolling out constant updates, just keep updating that thread. If you are leaving it a month or so between updates, feel free to start another thread for the new month. This way, we don't wind up with multiple threads all running at once with duplicate conversations going on.