(10-09-2013, 10:38 AM)Syrus Wrote: Not sure if you are serious or not to be honest...
Yes I am.
(10-09-2013, 10:38 AM)Syrus Wrote: I'll just go with "no". I don't think I need to comment on why, well, alright:
You commented why, and your reason sucks:
(10-09-2013, 10:38 AM)Syrus Wrote: "hitbox of a barge" "more agile than a LF", that is all.
1) Have you noticed how most if not all lf only have a single engine on their ship model? lt may be light and fast sure however I don't think it will be more agile than a ship that has full size thrusters actually dedicated to RCS functions.
(10-09-2013, 10:38 AM)Syrus Wrote: "hitbox of a barge" "more agile than a LF"
2) Large ship = faster ship provided same scale. Only in some kind of enviornment with resistant forces such as air resistance/friction/gravity would the larger ship be the slower ship.
3) Let's say that 90% of a barge's mass is dedicated to cargo, and 10% to the rest of its systems, incl. propulsions. of course it will be slow and low performance. Let's say your average LF is probably 40% mass dedicated to cargo, leaving 60% mass for other systems and therefore it will naturally be faster in performance. But the ship I'm proposing is with less than 5% volume dedicated to cargo. Do the math.
(10-09-2013, 10:38 AM)Syrus Wrote: well, alright: "hitbox of a barge" "more agile than a LF", that is all.
(10-09-2013, 10:30 AM)lIceColon Wrote: This obviously needs balancing
...
hitbox of a barge (okay maybe not neccesarily a barge, but you get the idea)).
(10-09-2013, 10:43 AM)Mister_X Wrote: Why is this not in Flood?
Just because you find it ridiculous, doesn't mean it is ridiculous. It just means you have a closed mind.
No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.
