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.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because it seems to have adjustable wings (hinges) on both wings as well as hydraulic like ligaments. The wings looks lite, made of cloth material, like you might use in a vehicle meant to flap (hence the wings being made out of lighter material than steal). If you had a fixed wing may as well make them from steal?
Also both of the inspirations have flapping wings (Leonardo Da Vinci drawing and insect/dragonfly).

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?

Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.

 Grimtuff wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?

Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.

I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.

 Tamereth wrote:
The problem with the flyer is it doesn't look like a front line combat unit.
The personal transport of a magi, used to hop between one forge and another it makes sense, but flying into gun fire?
No, not so much.

Most helicopters look pretty fragile except the really meaty ones like the Hind D. This seems to fulfill a similar role as these:



I like it but its seems to be a marmite model - which is cool

Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.

Huh, it has transport capacity?

Maybe throw Rustalkers in there and they can do something for once in their useless existence. Of course without a better way to propel melee units at the enemy who cares?

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

It doesn't need to. The inspiration and basis for the model is clear. Same way that 'Tolkien orc, dwarf and elf' serve as inspirations for warhammer, but don't need to be inserted on the relevant store pages.

Nor does a Leman Russ need 'it's a WWI tank' scribbled in the margins.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.

Is this still a thing in the current military? Likely operate in a similar way maybe they use magnetic clams or similar? I think Skitarii ride on the outside of many Ad Mech vechicles?

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Ornithopters flap, and this takes cues from that as part of it's name. Also didn't Da Vinci's flying machine flap as well? And that is the inspiration for the wings.

[edit]Whoops should have refreshed the page!

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Archaeopter, Greek for "ancient wing". I'll give you three guesses what it's named after. And that definitely did fly by flapping its wings, sorta.

We use the root Latin word "planus" to describe the wings on fixed-wing aircraft, as their role is to act as a flat, immobile lift surface. We use the Greek "-pter" (wing, feather) to differentiate systems where a moving wing provides lift. "Helicopter" for example

It's clearly a thing with moving wings, as both the model and name show.

 Momotaro wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Archaeopter, Greek for "ancient wing". I'll give you three guesses what it's named after. And that definitely did fly by flapping its wings, sorta.

We use the root Latin word "planus" to describe the wings on fixed-wing aircraft, as their role is to act as a flat, immobile lift surface. We use the Greek "-pter" (wing, feather) to differentiate systems where a moving wing provides lift. "Helicopter" for example

It's clearly a thing with moving wings, as both the model and name show.

Well, whilst we're pretty sure that Pigs did have wings - current thinking is that these were really just for steering and they flew more like a dirigible using internal gas sacs (or possibly a volatile liquid which would need to warm in the sun after a cold night, giving rise to the famous phrase for when you're putting something off til later in the day).

I think he means Pterodactyls.

archaopterix

Mr Morden wrote:

The Admech worship and only use working STC files. Does the Archeaopter look like a flier that would have been designed the Dark Age of Technology? If the Admech were more free in their tinkering I would understand, but they are strict to the point that if this vehicle isnt true to the original STC design, it would not be widespread across the entire Cult Mechanicus.

I will have check my copy of RT but pretty sure that this sort of design was present at the very start of 40k as a Imperial flyer

it looks like it came straight out of the pages of RT and I love it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Seems small, even for a transport cap of 5 (shown on the sketch), but I suppose Skiitari can just fold themselves up nice and slim into the overhead compartments.

Huh, it has transport capacity?

Maybe throw Rustalkers in there and they can do something for once in their useless existence. Of course without a better way to propel melee units at the enemy who cares?

Peltasts would kick ass popping out of it as well

Apple fox wrote:
It really does look like it’s kinda designed not to have wings,.

Not sure where you're getting that idea. They're just not shown on the side view so that the design can focus on the fuselage details, but the barrel mount for the wings is right there in the pic.

Tastyfish wrote:
Well, whilst we're pretty sure that Pigs did have wings - current thinking is that these were really just for steering and they flew more like a dirigible using internal gas sacs (or possibly a volatile liquid which would need to warm in the sun after a cold night, giving rise to the famous phrase for when you're putting something off til later in the day).

Someone else saw the kids film Flight of Dragons I see

changemod wrote:
archaopterix

Thank you, Jaysus wept, thank you...

 Momotaro wrote:

changemod wrote:
archaopterix

Thank you, Jaysus wept, thank you...

You said I had 3 guesses.

JWBS wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?

Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.

I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.

Weird hill you’ve chosen to die on. It’s blatantly an Ornithopter-referencing design and name but with a a copywritable name. It’s fairly obvious.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

JWBS wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Ok, so the wings don't flap. Thats at both times good and bad. I want a flappy flyer...

Why do so many people think the wings flap? The thought never entered my mind. It’s like thinking the Star Wars Imperial Shuttle flaps just because it has a means of adjusting the wings.

Because its an ornithopter. That's literally how they're supposed to fly.

Now, actually putting that into a model would be difficult and pointless, but designing it so its wings look like they flap is kind of the point of that type of flyer.

It's called an Archaeopter. The word Ornithopter doesn't appear anywhere on the reveal page.

Why, oh why are people in this hobby so bloody pedantic? Do you get off on splitting hairs or something?

Numerous people ITT have said it is based on an Ornithopter from Dune, so one would presume it flies in the same manner.

I'm not being pedantic. You seem unreasonably irritated that I've pointed out that it's called an Archaeopter and not an Ornithopter. Just because it reminds people of Dune, that doesn't make it an Ornithopter. If it flies like a bird, they could have called it an Ornithopter. They've called it an Archaeptor, indicating that it utilises some sort of archaic technology to stay airbourne. No, I don't 'get off' by pointing this out. Calm down please.

Weird hill you’ve chosen to die on. It’s blatantly an Ornithopter-referencing design and name but with a a copywritable name. It’s fairly obvious.

What are you talking about? I'm not dying on a hill. I've accepted it's an ornithopter. Have you not bothered reading the rest of the thread?

But you were being pedantic. It was eminently clear what it was meant to be, what it was referencing, and you went on and on about how it wasn't despite how clear it was, and did so in a nit-picky and dare we say pedantic manner.

(And now I'm being pedantic about you being pedantic! )

Someone probably said it already but personally, the 40k ornithopter doesn't tickle my fancy and looks butt ugly. I would prefer not to have it on the table against me. But it wouldn't stop me playing a game probably.

It feels more like they made it for AOS but then decided to stick some 40k guns on it because IOM needed more releases in a schedule?

Points to whoever converts the admech flyer into the batcopter from the Adam West days

Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.

 Manchu wrote:
Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.

at this point I'm convinced GW could put out an image of a squad of beakie marines, tell us it's a new unit and you'd see posters here arguing it's hidious and doesn't aesteticly belong in 40k

folks have differing opinions tis the way it goes. honestly what I've always loved about 40k is the sheer varity of stylings among the armies. there's something for everyone

JWBS wrote:
Fck are you talking about? I'm not dying on a hill. I've accepted it's an ornithopter. Have you not bothered reading the rest of the thread?

If you have accepted that it's an ornithopter, maybe saying that, instead of arguing over what it was called might have been more productive.

SO, if we're all on the same page now, let's leave the pedantry there, folks, and get back to talking about the actual models.

 Argive wrote:
It feels more like they made it for AOS but then decided to stick some 40k guns on it because IOM needed more releases in a schedule?

Really? We know that's not how they do things. And design Jes' sketches are even in this thread.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Kind of surprised to see so much dislike of the AdMech ornithopter. I love it! But then again I love most of the AdMech stuff because of it’s bizarre, retro feel.

at this point I'm convinced GW could put out an image of a squad of beakie marines, tell us it's a new unit and you'd see posters here arguing it's hidious and doesn't aesteticly belong in 40k

folks have differing opinions tis the way it goes. honestly what I've always loved about 40k is the sheer varity of stylings among the armies. there's something for everyone

It's interesting to see what people accept and what they don't. Honestly, I can see how people might have expected something a bit more 'industrial' here, but it's cool to see GW taking a less obvious angle, and it still fits in to the general AdMech vibe, for me. The only thing I don't like about it is the door guns sticking straight out sideways, partly because they look a bit awkward, and partly because they look like they would get in the way of the legs. It's a small point, though, and easily remedied by just leaving off the door guns...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Argive wrote:
It feels more like they made it for AOS but then decided to stick some 40k guns on it because IOM needed more releases in a schedule?

Really? We know that's not how they do things. And design Jes' sketches are even in this thread.

It;s also nowhere near over-the-top enough to fit in with current AoS designs.