test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Tor Khat wings need to move!!!
spike6942
Member Posts: 11 Arc User
if you cloak up then move the camera to the undercarriage you can see the rod/pivot point for the wings
I would LOVE to see them work!!! Who's with me!!!!
I would LOVE to see them work!!! Who's with me!!!!
Post edited by spike6942 on
0
Comments
It's not a BoP. Those aren't pivot points those are attachment rings... It's basically a refit on a Vor'Cha, and like it's original, it's a fixed wing warship...
All these transforming, moving stuff is a disease that should never been invented in the first place.
Whether it does or not, doesn't matter. I actually like the way it looks fixed in the upward position.
So I guess the modeling team that designed the original B'Rel should never have given it moving wings?
Considering I've flown one for the past two months, yeah, I'd say I've gotten a pretty good look at my ship. And it still doesn't change the fact that it's a Vor'Cha. Which is a fixed wing warship.
Also, have you ever seen an F4U Corsair? It's a WW2 aircraft, prop driven, fixed wing. It has what are called "gull wings", wings that are angled downward then upward. If you look carefully at the Tor'Kaht from the front and the back, straight down the hull, you will see that the wings connect to the main hull, and follow that same wing pattern.
Just sayin'...
Generally things that're fixed don't have a pivot-point and rounded edges.
so why even have the pivot point on there at all?
No they didn't. Just the carrier-based aircraft.
The Tor'Khat has an obvious pivot-point. It's there. It's undeniable. There's even a horizontal "plate" on the ventral flank that one would presume would be the "stop" for the wing's travel.
That's like saying the Nova and Defiant don't have landing gear doors, even tho they're on both the canon MSDs and studio renders. Yet people still argue the Intrepid's the only Federation ship that can land..
This is not Star Trek Armada...
If we are referring to the Tor'Kaht, then it's probably just cosmetic. If we are talking about the Corsair, I will not answer that since I already did.
What the heck are you talking about?
There was no Tor'kaht in Star Trek Armada 2.
Here's a list of all the Klingon ships in Armada 2:
NuQ'DuJ-class
Chava'kal-class
Koloth-class
B'rel-class
Chuq'Beh-class
SuQ'Jagh-class
Vor'cha-class
Fek'lhr-class
Qeh'ral-class
Negh'Var-class
Jach'Eng-class
where is a Tor'kaht in that list?
http://armada2.filefront.com/files/Armada_2/Ships;764
Probably in there somewhere.
1. Already checked and no.
2. Random fanfiction mods don't count.
Player and forumite formerly known as FEELTHETHUNDER
Expatriot Might Characters in EXILE
Right, it just needs a propeller;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6STlxPrwJE
http://mofak.com/Night_Infamy.htm
I've read another story (can't find it right now) that mentions a F8 pilot (might have been French) who took off with his wings folded and then jinked causing them to fold down as a (unauthorized) stunt at an air show.
Which is why Kirk is the Captain and not the Chief Engineer...
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/misconceptions.php#id--Rockets_Got_Wings
Ok hereticknight, you are all knowing, im sorry i brought it up i didnt realize that you have the final say on this. so cryptic you heard him no more moving parts on any ship.
its the bane of his existence.
ohh and the corsair thing, that was the most inappropriate comparison. they are nothing alike, apples to oranges. make a comparison that has a hinge that doesnt move, ever!
There's no reason to get snippy. In fact that was downright rude. I was putting out logical simple arguments, and you give me this? An age comment would be appropriate here, but instead I shall simply ask this:
Why should the wings move? What good would they do the ship? How would it be cosmetically appealing?
1) This is not another game, so model should not function as it did in another game.
2) Klingons build cosmetic uselessness into pure-bread purpose-built warships.
Seems legit.
Moving parts always adds flavor to ingame models. Could be a Bugatti Veyron's spoiler on Need for Speed or the functioning BCG on an M4 in Fallout 3. People like moving parts..You can't tell someone to tell you how something would be visually appealing, because it's all a matter of taste to begin with. That's like asking someone to tell you what rhythm is. You either know or you don't..
Now that was a civilized and legit response. Thank you.
ok, snippyness aside, how about this; they get the nacelles out of the line of fire to the main body or they get the weapons on the wing in a better position to fire? i dont freaking know because i didnt design the thing! thats not what i wanted to debate! I DONT CARE WHY ITS THERE!!! i just wanted the thing to work as it was designed, thats all. im one of those that likes the moving things, it adds flavor, even just a little bit. take the chimaera, not the best looking ship nor is it the most powerful, but its pretty cool when it goes into tac mode, useless as it is as a warship, i like looking at it. and if they made a b'rel without moving wings it would be a k'vort. same class of ship but different. yes i get it its the vor cha family, but why is it so hard to swallow that you can have moving parts on a retrofit? and why do people have to get butthurt about changing things in the game?
Do you have any special insight into the creation of this ship?
Because originally the wings of the Birds of Prey in this game did not move and were later converted to move without any viasual changes to the models, no "pivot points" of any sort etc.
So how do you know this ship was designed or intended to have moving parts?
One could even fit this into the lore by saying the Tor'Kaht was a Klingon experiment in warp efficiency in a large-ish ship, similar to Intrepid's moving nacelle pylons.
"Flat" when out of warp, "up" when at warp. Very similar to the Intrepid.
Except the person who claimed it was in another game has not yet managed to prove that it is in another game.
And there's no eveidence I could find anyone ever created even a model named Tor'kaht for Armada not to mention it would have to look like the ship in STO for this to make even remote sense.
And then there's the matter that Cryptic can't just use stuff produced by another game company, or fan merterial.
HMM, what does "cosmetic uselessness" in this context mean?
The Bird of Prey has wings for atmospheric operations.
In addition the recetly release Haynes Owner's Workship Manualexplains that the wings move into the horizontal for cruising because the canon BoP has its actual warp propulsion system in the wings (it does not have warp coils, but plates) and this system works best when the plates are in the same plane as the hull.
They move into a lowered position for an improved field of fire and because the plasma lines constrict which allows more concentrated warp plasma to be fed to the weaspons.
And the move into an upward position for landing so they don't touch the ground.
Please note the wings never moved on the larger cruiser-sized models, probably because it makes no sense at that size for field of fire purposes.
And ships of that size probably don't land on planes but can still move through the atmosphere for attacks.
Taste is certainly something very hard to debate over, but for example spoilers on (real) cars usually move because they have a function and that characteristic is usually replicated in a simulation/somewhat accurate racing game.
Moving warp pylons can be and have been explained on larger ships in Star Trek lore.
Have you ever built a 3-d model?
Because when you connect elements of different angles (especially of they are rather "flat") you need to have some kind if connection point or it will just look wrong or might produce clipping errors.
The simplest way to solve this problem is to use a cylindrical connection point.
I think you can imagine what that will look like.
In addition the Tor'kaht was originally designed and released as a mix-and-match model for the Vor'cha on the C-Store (in fact it was the only additional skin at the time).
That it was set up as a ship with moving parts makes no sense because it was mix and match with a ship that has no moving parts.
On the Intrepid, the additional skins all have the same characteristic: they have moving parts in the same place.
There is no mix and match in this game where the model of a ship with this feature is mixed with one that is without it.
And it makes no sense to set up a model to have a feature that will never be used under any circumstances.
Seems our postings intersect somewhat, it currently takes a while for me to write mine.
*EDIT: but you haven't explained what you mean by "cometic uselessness", you only explained why the Feds built a ship with folding (and only 1, must a reason they never developed the concept further)
http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m496/wungee/M47Hull-1.jpg
Modification of the default M46's hull in World of Tanks to properly represent the 60* glacis of an M47.
http://screenshots.filesnetwork.com/8/files2/26401_4.jpg
An early kitbash I did for Bridge Commander.
I know that you don't need to create a pivot-point in a face to finalize the model. There is a physical "spar" that travels thru the chord of the root of the Tor'Kaht's "wings", pylons, whatever you want to call them. At the back of said "wings", they are rounded to suggest a rolling motion. The "plates" on the ventral surface of the Tor'Kaht would suggest that they are there to "stop" some kind of vertical motion of the nacelle pylons, as there is an obvious angular gap.
None of that is required in the 3D model as it's all unique to the Tor'Kaht's model, and indeed suggests that there should be about 15* of vertical movement of the nacelle pylons, with the pylons currently fixed in their extreme-upright position.
What was going on in the modeler's mind when he was designing the Tor'Kaht? We'll never know. It very well could've been designed as a separate class originally with moving parts, but got stuck as a ship costume for the Vor'Cha when it was implemented and then as a variant of teh Vor'Cha in later updates.
That doesn't mean that the ship wasn't originally designed with folding "wings" in mind, as the model just screams "These things are supposed to move!"..
Whether they do or not, I really don't care. I find it extremely attractive (One of the best looking ships in the game in my opinion) just the way it is now.
Someone earlier had said they were probably there "just for looks". Do the Klingons make a habit of building things on their otherwise purpose-built warships that're "just for looks"? Or is there function with form? You said yourself that the wings on the B'Rel were a functional part of it's warp drive. Form following function. We know the D7/K'T'Inga/Vor'Cha/Negh'Var all share similar lines because of similar internal construction of a horizontal warp core that spans the "wings", which is again, form following function. We know they have "heads" because that's where much of the forward battery, torpedo launchers, bridges, sensor arrays, etc are located--again, form following function.
But where have the Klingons ever just stuck something on a warship "just for looks"?
Again, I see the Tor'Kaht as a possible experimental design following the same path as the Intrepid. Especially with the Federation enforcing "warp speed limits" to inefficient older designs.
How successful was it? Who knows. We don't see moving nacelles on many Federation ships that came after the Intrepid either, right?