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.

The more I see the Stormraven, the more I'm disappointed over the model. IMO, it's an unmitigated disaster, and fixing one problem simply draws the eye to another problem.

Case in point - the Formula 1-style upper air intake and upper servitor turret look completely stupid, so a guy converts his bird to remove the turret and shrink the airbox.



The cleaned-up top looks better, but now, the new weapons are clearly tacked-on instead of mounted, and the eye focuses on the stepped floor. One imagines if that is fixed, the next problem will be the tail boom. And then it'll be using Rhino doors instead of LR doors. Or the goofy front hull weapons. Or the wing design. Gah.

It's like a case of whack-a-mole, in which there's always another problem popping up that needs to be knocked down. To me, that means the SRG is a fundamentally-flawed design, hence, the "shortbus" nickname, which I doubt it'll ever shed. Of course, if Jes gets a chance to redo this in 5-10 years time, that'd be great, but the damage is done.

Probably, we're looking at full scratch build conversions to make this right.

Fortunately, I have some experience doing this kind of thing (I like the Leman Russ' rules, but not the model). Guess it's time to hit the drawing board...

- Need I say more?

I only wonder how a ground attack aircraft intends to hit ground targets with weapons mounted in a turret that far back on the roof. With the central location it's ability to depress the weapons is severely limited, so it won't be able to fire at ground targets unless they are extremely far away or it's diving straight at them. And at the low altitudes of a 40K game it's not going to be diving for long without meeting the ground.

It may be able to travel forward with a nose-down attitude, like modern helicopters, but A) that is still fairly limited and B) it's 40k so it matters not anyway.

But yeah the thing is a friggin turd design, aint it? I mean, if ANYTHING ever could benefit from a split-boom tail design, it would be the transport that carries the 10' tall metal robot latched to its rear, wouldn't it?

I call it an epic fail. Fail designs.

And the WORST....nah, time to shutup. Last thing needed is another Chibi Hawk crybaby thread.

you should post soem pics of the bad storm raven sesign so people know what you are talking about
but i agree it sucks but i have seen some nice conversions make of 1-2 land raiders and a valcrie
my 2cents

Honestly I expected more spite, with examples.

I've seen far nicer looking conversions that sure, while they have a lot of similar design aspects of the actual Stormraven, they look, I dunno, better?

I can't quite place it, but the official model just looks like a flying box. Something I'd laugh at if I was in the field of battle and one came flying towards me.

Moving thread to 40K Discussions.

To be honest, I quite like it. Sure, it's definitely not the best GW have ever done.. in a very, very, very long time.. but it's definitely not the worst and I think they were trying to steer away from the idea of a "mini-Thunderhawk", even though that might have been better.

The BoLs one is better.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=6013

I like it. Its bulky, sure, but hell, so are rhinos/predators/landraiders/etc. Keeps with the boxy, space marine feel.

It looks to me that the main problem ties to having so many upright elements:
- the nearly-vertical nose face,
- the cut off fuselage rear,
- the vertial airbox,
- the full-height Servitor turret,
- the stacked floor,
- tall rear stabllizer
- the canted wings
These all combine to create a reinforcing series of vertical lines that accentuate the height of the model.

Horizontally, the model is not long, and all of the horizontal elements are broken up:
- nose only projects about 1" from hull
- cockpit nose face is broken up by hull guns, full-width cockpit
- servitor turret is only as long as the turret ring, with minimal overhang vs full height
- airbox is taller than long
- upper fuselage line stops at engine
- engine is large diameter relative to length, emphasizing breadth over length
- engine covers shortening from wing root to shortest at the most visible top cover of the engine
- engine cover breaks engine into 3 pieces
- lower fuselage line starts behind forward thrusters
- lower fuselage line stops at rear landing gear
- rear landing gear is a short brick
- short tail starts tucked between engines
These all work to break up any visual length in the model.

And the remaining elements are all broad:
- full-width cockpit
- gun turret with side-mounted guns
- large diameter engines
- full-width wings, extending wider from engines
So the width is the strongly accentuated visually

On net, the model is vertically tall, horizontally wide, but too short nose-to-tail, hence the "short bus" applation.


I've been playing with the parts & shapes, and like something proportioned more like the Valk would have been feasible:
0. remove airbox and servitor turret
1. extend nose forward by about 1"
2. extend fuselage back by 2" to 3" to fill space under engines
3. extend tail boom by 3" - 4" behind rear of engines
4. move hull & turret guns under the wings
5. rebuild cockpit into something flatter & sleeker
This would help accentuate the length, simplify the model, giving more of a sense of speed and direction.
- tail tucked between engines


like something proportioned more like the Valk would have been feasible:
0. remove airbox and servitor turret
1. extend nose forward by about 1"
2. extend fuselage back by 2" to 3" to fill space under engines
3. extend tail boom by 3" - 4" behind rear of engines
4. move hull & turret guns under the wings
5. rebuild cockpit into something flatter & sleeker[/url]

JohnHwangDD you Avatar is too distracting >:{

Mukkin'About wrote:

FTW!!! thank you!

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Mukkin'About wrote:

FTW!!! thank you!

No problem. I'm sick of Stormraven threads.

To DD's credit, it's the most exhaustive and scientific approach to the SR criticism ever conducted by man... But!
EVERYONES TOO BUSY STARING AT THE WET ASIAN GIRL IN HIS AVATAR TO GIVE A HOOT

Mukkin'About wrote:

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Mukkin'About wrote:

FTW!!! thank you!

No problem. I'm sick of Stormraven threads.

Don't read them them.

Other people are interested in the topic.

Well John , i think most of us can agree on a few points.

-Aesthetically its ugly
-Design wise , its not good either.

We can also agree Majortom11's fast photo shop is genius compared to GW's.

A few people have defended chibihawk via " who ever says 40k has to make sense" and YES they are right , but which brings to the next point...
If 40k design doesnt have to make sense , then im even more disappointed on how ugly it is. Atleast if it functions properly it can be forgiven ne?

And the one thing that i cant change my mind about is how much it looks like a track-less land raider with wings glued on.

The turret on the roof ... im not sure, i dont hate it. It reminds me of those Flying Fortress turrets.
But the front melta / heavy bolter at the nose looks horrible. Doesnt look like it can swivel or aim at all!

Well, I am not a fan of Imperial design in general, but this one is reasonably close to the Thunderhawk, although it has some design flaws that urge the community to do conversions



If you don't like it, there are a few alternatives, like this one from Mythicast http://mythicast.com/ :

@Luna: 40k design has to make sense within it's own design universe.

Like the Thawk transporter (THT) example. It's a silly design, but it matches the rest, to allow one to suspend disbelief, so it's OK. Note how the THT has actual arms to grab the LR, whereas the SRG uses a magic dot to hold the Dread...

You are correct, the designer was going for a B-17 appoach, hence the nose gun and upper turret.

But yeah, the nose gun is horrible.

____

@Kroothawk: Both of your examples are far sleeker - look how the Thawk has long horizontal lines, while the not-SRG has a long tail with all of the weapons in low-profile mounts

Note that the mythic one isn't quite right, either. It's too much like an airplane.

Personally I enjoy the current Design for the Storm Raven, I think it has a SM feel to it and while, yes I will agree it does look like a Thunderhawk got into a front end wreck, I think it will grow on people as a design.

OK, I've been playing with the StormRaven parts & design elements, and I've come up with a design that I'm more-or-less happy with.

I keep the basic shape alone, but make it a lot sleeker. Instead of a turret, I go with a dual cockpit for the SM Pilot & Servitor. I enclose the Dread, giving the body more length, and I streamline the shape. Engines & wings & thrusters remain the same.

For size / scale reference the red dashed silhoutte is an upside-down Land Raider. Overall length matches the Valkyrie.

Darkvoidof40k wrote:To be honest, I quite like it. Sure, it's definitely not the best GW have ever done.. in a very, very, very long time.. but it's definitely not the worst and I think they were trying to steer away from the idea of a "mini-Thunderhawk", even though that might have been better.

Well said.
I like it myself.
It has a face only a parent could love and I shall love my as such.

The Thunderhawk Transporter looks a lot like the ISSCV transporter from Space: Above and Beyond.

http://spaceaboveandbeyond.tv/images-issapc.html

Kurb wrote:

Darkvoidof40k wrote:To be honest, I quite like it. Sure, it's definitely not the best GW have ever done.. in a very, very, very long time.. but it's definitely not the worst and I think they were trying to steer away from the idea of a "mini-Thunderhawk", even though that might have been better.

Well said.
I like it myself.
It has a face only a parent could love and I shall love my as such.

I like it too. I've got mine about 70% painted and really dig it.

Quite frankly, why couldnt they have done something like this? http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/5540/stormraven1.jpg. Alot more solid looking and structurally sound rather than a shortened Thunderhawk.

Yeah, really. I think GW gets their rocks off by making crappy models that sell for obscene amounts just to see how many people will buy it.

I've been thinking about this, and I figured out what the problem is: it's half a model. The front looks just like a thunderhawk, but the the thunderhawk has a back end, balancing out the model. The stormraven is a decapitated thunderhawk, giving the impression of a giant head with a tiny body. This is very awkward and unnatractive to the human eye.