Sorry if it's insufficiently exciting. It was (mainly) an experiment in terms of some new production techniques. Well, that, and starting to think about what a semi-plausible futuristic warship would actually look like. Still working on that part
And the underwater powertrain design (it's not a catamaran, technically) is one of the big things in nautical engineering atm, could eventually make regular ships obsolete by allowing ships (especially warships) to operate with different drafts by changing ballast levels, save fuel, go faster, and be sturdier. That, and I wanted a distinct reference to the Lockheed-Martin "stealth ship", because it was cool.
Anyhow, that is what I'm referencing, I guess nobody's really familiar with that stuff. About the only things that aren't really reasonable is the size of the cannon, and I didn't include a helo pad (although that is pretty tempting, come to think, so maybe I'll do that).
Last edited by Argh on 28 Dec 2009, 06:33, edited 1 time in total.
Saying that we do not understand because people rejected the unit comes off as condescending.
It looks really boxy and lacking detail. Considering the other resistance designs it seems out of place. Another thing iwould suggest looking at is making th pontoons look more part of the ships design. That could help sell the unit.
Another thing is many resistance look based on natural things, from badgers, bears, wasps and grass hoppers. Considering also the gemetric complexity of gmns unit it strikes me as really out of place.
Explaining the sources isn't being "condescending", it's being thoughtful and exploring why the audience's reaction to the work is a lot different than my own. I see functionality and a lot of references, they see boxy and ugly. It's all right, nobody's hurt by that.
I thought explaining where I was coming from might help people understand the design decisions- it doesn't make it less ugly, but maybe it makes more sense.
I have personally seen the militaries big assed catamaran and seen many pictures of the stealth one.
Your design is too long and panely for stealth and merges poorly the elements of the two. Once again rather than acknowledge the points brought up, you try to focus entirely on what you seem to see as an attack.
I gave you a serious critique and tried to explain what I thnk others are expressing. I will not do so again
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum