| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ava Zarrs
   |
Posted - 2010.12.18 14:32:00 -
[31]
Just look at the Raven for a sec and try to ignore it¦s head and fragile neck-like thingy (or just cover that part).
When I did that, there obviously was a ****pit missing, but the whole form seemed much more aesthetic and balanced (even though it¦s asymetrical).
As it is right now (distracting ****pit-part)I think it¦s fugly as hell.
Oh and btw.. because someone pointed out the old CNR and it¦s visible launchers:
Isn¦t there any interest in finally adding some kind of launcher models to the game?
-Ava
PS: The Ravens looks are the main reason for me to train for the NH instead...
|
Jacob Stov
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:48:00 -
[32]
Maybe an overhauled skin would be nice. Looks a bit blurry compared to the new models. The design itself is ok.
I'd rather have one of those "utility highs" turned into a "utility medium slot". Prefer a web or painter over an undersized neut or nothing at all.
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:48:00 -
[33]
 Originally by: Ava Zarrs
Just look at the Raven for a sec and try to ignore it¦s head and fragile neck-like thingy (or just cover that part).
When I did that, there obviously was a ****pit missing, but the whole form seemed much more aesthetic and balanced (even though it¦s asymetrical).
As it is right now (distracting ****pit-part)I think it¦s fugly as hell.
-Ava
I was ust thinking the same hting! Remove the flimsy ****-pit and add some lights to that bulky section behind it and the raven would look super cool.
Oh and please change the very rear larger middle engine, it looks like a toilet bowl 
EVE Trivia EVE History
|
fuxinos
Caldari
Guys 0f Sarcasm
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:51:00 -
[34]
Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2010 15:50:55
Ever looked at a Navy Raven?
Has much bigger thruster effects, looks much cooler.
They should add that to Golem and Raven aswell.
|
Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 15:52:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Zeru Adelheid
While it certainly isn't a priority, I personally feel the Raven is fugly as well, and that is the primary reason I have avoided training up Caldari BS. 
Vote yes
|
Dorian Wylde
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 16:30:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Staggerr
Since when are all spaceships supposed to look good? Its a ****ing combat game, not a fashion contest.
This. And Caldari are utilitarian, they are not concerned with looks.
|
Birdman Ravo
Legion of The Birds
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 16:42:00 -
[37]
Aethetics-wise I never saw a problem with the Raven. When I exported the model and started looking at the wireframe, THAT made me think the ship was fugly.
IMO the Raven portays exactly what the Raven should be. I personally think the ship could be re-done with new textures and a new wireframe, but otherwise without changing the basis of the ship.
|
AterraX
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 18:21:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Khors
Posting in yet another my-perception-can't-comprehend-asymmetry thread
+1
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Fact of EVE forums: They will always come an anounomys alt-toon and question someones character... |
Gecko O'Bac
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 19:46:00 -
[39]
Just wanted to point out a thing... Asymmetry doesn't mean ugliness (although in a realistic environment, an asymmetric design is, most of the times, unneeded or even undesirable). Look at the thorax: it's asymmetric and still it's a cool ship.
It is a fact though that the human eye and brain are more receptive to the inherent symmetry in nature and thus perceive it as a "good" and "desirable" feature in the things that surround us, so there's no wonder that symmetrical designs usually are more likely to encounter the favour of the crowd. But that said, CCP is able to make asymmetrical designs with wonderful and pleasing looks. The raven (and really, most of the old designs) are not (or at least, they are not for a big % of the player population).
|
Born DorkLover
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 20:58:00 -
[40]
This is my favorite ship, been flying one for years, but I agree, let's lose that stubbly ****** wing and give it some symmetry like the Scorp got.
|
|
|
Blue Lines
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 21:05:00 -
[41]
The Raven is a stunted mess.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.18 21:38:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
J(although in a realistic environment, an asymmetric design is, most of the times, unneeded or even undesirable)
Funnily enough, most of the actually space-faring things humanity has built so far have been largely asymmetric.
Oh, and if we were to argue for symmetry for realism's sake, then all ships in EVE would have to be redesigned, except maybe for the Zephyr ù the oft-lauded Scorp is right out of the picture, for oneà 
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Parsee789
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 04:09:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
J(although in a realistic environment, an asymmetric design is, most of the times, unneeded or even undesirable)
Funnily enough, most of the actually space-faring things humanity has built so far have been largely asymmetric.
Oh, and if we were to argue for symmetry for realism's sake, then all ships in EVE would have to be redesigned, except maybe for the Zephyr ù the oft-lauded Scorp is right out of the picture, for oneà
Most of the modern space vessels I've seen were clearly symmetrical. You need to get some glasses. The same reasons why jets and most aircraft are symmetrical, because it has been proven most efficient and aerodynamic.
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 04:27:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Parsee789
Most of the modern space vessels I've seen were clearly symmetrical. You need to get some glasses. The same reasons why jets and most aircraft are symmetrical, because it has been proven most efficient and aerodynamic.
In space, and more then that in a world where Gravity is an option.
Antisymetrical is a Caldari trait and a beautiful one, how spacecraft function in RL bound by Gravaty and the need to lift of from the surface has little to do with Caldari art ans design in a world where none of that matters.
The Raven is fine and when it is upgraded I sure don't want to see her another boring Symetrical space craft with little unique about her.
--
Originally by: NoNah
I'm afraid you can't really expect a decent answer as the new generation of posters arrived. Alara and her merry crew just isn't that interested in anything constructive.
|
Zeru Adelheid
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 07:39:00 -
[45]
I don't really care that it is asymmetrical, in fact, I love asymmetrical designs. I just think the current design for the Raven is fugly.
|
Alara IonStorm
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 08:23:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Alara IonStorm on 19/12/2010 08:25:00
Next people will be complaining they do not like the look of the Golem.
--
Originally by: NoNah
I'm afraid you can't really expect a decent answer as the new generation of posters arrived. Alara and her merry crew just isn't that interested in anything constructive.
|
Deane Adama
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 15:32:00 -
[47]
Leave Raven alone and try to find some other animal than duckbill platypus to represent the horridness called "Drake".
Image to show the resemblance: Duckbill Platypus
|
Birdman Ravo
Legion of The Birds
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 16:09:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Deane Adama
Leave Raven alone and try to find some other animal than duckbill platypus to represent the horridness called "Drake".
The Drake's mesh is for lack of better words - flawless. A lot of love went into the design of that Battlecruiser.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 16:55:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Parsee789
Most of the modern space vessels I've seen were clearly symmetrical. You need to get some glasses. The same reasons why jets and most aircraft are symmetrical, because it has been proven most efficient and aerodynamic.
No. Or wellà I suppose they are, but you haven't actually seen many space vessels then.
For one, very few aircraft are actually symmetrical unless you count rockets and the like. Anything else is, at best, left/right-symmetric because it has a bunch of aerodynamic control surfaces that removes the need for up/down symmetry by counteracting the off-centre application of force. The reason the space shuttle looks the same is because it needs to operate in atmosphere and thus can make use of the same functionality. However, actual spacecraft have no use for efficiency and aerodynamics and there is no use for control surfaces so the look of aircraft is of exactly zero relevance. It also means that if symmetry was needed at all, it would have to be symmetry along both these axes because there wouldn't be any way to counteract that up/down asymmetry.
As luck would have it, though, it's not needed. Go have a look at anything that has moved any useful distance in space ù they're all over the place. Hell, even the LEM was an asymmetric mess with bits and bulges sticking out at odd angles. The shuttle (as mentioned) is actually asymmetric as soon as you forget about a fixed up or down, and it can compensate for this just fine when in space. This means that it would also be able to compensate for left-right asymmetry under the same circumstances (but that would cause problems when you want to get it down to Earth again, so it isn't).
That's why all the other junk we've sent through space isn't symmetric: because it doesn't need to be and because it just imposes pointless design constraints. Instead, it gets brought up through that troublesome atmosphere in a nice protective shell and then gets deployed or sent off, after which it's child's play to compensate for any bits sticking out in odd directions.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
ZephyrLexx
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 17:36:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Parsee789
For one, very few aircraft are actually symmetrical
couldn't be more wrong if you tried
|
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 17:42:00 -
[51]
Originally by: ZephyrLexx
Originally by: Tippia
For one, very few aircraft are actually symmetrical
couldn't be more wrong if you tried
Lol no. It's just you who are too stuck in your normal inertial frame to consider which directions are which.
For instance, you think there is such a direction as "up". 
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Zilberfrid
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 18:11:00 -
[52]
It is symmetrical, other then toilets and other small things, but along only one axis.
-------------------------------------
I like to fly around and shoot stuff.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 18:48:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Tippia on 19/12/2010 18:54:30
Originally by: Zilberfrid
It is symmetrical, other then toilets and other small things, but along only one axis.
Exactly: because it can compensate for the asymmetry along the other axes through the use of various control surfaces. This mechanism isn't available to space craft, which means that normal aircraft do not work as a point of comparison. If we want to talk about symmetry in space, we have to discuss more than one axis, and if we use that as a our basis for comparison, aircraft are no longer symmetrical.
And, more to the point, spacecraft use different mechanisms to control their movement and to counteract asymmetries. These mechanism work on all axes, which means that symmetry is no longer a factor (having your trust in line with your centre of mass is, but that's a different issue).
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Riedle
Minmatar
Wayne's TV and Appliances
|
Posted - 2010.12.19 19:42:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Parsee789
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Gecko O'Bac
J(although in a realistic environment, an asymmetric design is, most of the times, unneeded or even undesirable)
Funnily enough, most of the actually space-faring things humanity has built so far have been largely asymmetric.
Oh, and if we were to argue for symmetry for realism's sake, then all ships in EVE would have to be redesigned, except maybe for the Zephyr ù the oft-lauded Scorp is right out of the picture, for oneà
Most of the modern space vessels I've seen were clearly symmetrical. You need to get some glasses. The same reasons why jets and most aircraft are symmetrical, because it has been proven most efficient and aerodynamic.
You don't need to be aerodynamic in space, genius.
|
Sceta
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:09:00 -
[55]
The only thing that needs to be changed is main body. It now looks like if the designer had the idea of making a flying brick.
The body should be more round and less large. At the same time the current 'wings' should be kept the same size. This way the wingspan looks much larger compared to the body.
Extending the 'neck' would be nice aswell. It is just the main body that bites. And no symetric is needed, the scorpion overhaul was nice it now looks actually like a scorpion.
_____________________
<The UFF movement>
Want to know more? |
NIKNAK
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 12:42:00 -
[56]
The new Scorpion model is very nice yet in my opinion the Raven is old and ugly and well overdue a rebuild.
Infact the nicest looking model in the Caldari range is being wasted on a damn drone: The Caldari Fighter Bomber Drone "Mantis" model is what the new Raven should look like or perhap's even swap that model for the Drake...
Open the Mantis ingame and click the little green eye icon then strecth the inflight pic and just look at the attention to detail that model has, just like the new Scorpion it has the dark metal look to it and then go look at the Raven/Drake again 
just my 2c
thank's for reading.
Nik.
|
Ruareve
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 13:09:00 -
[57]
I agree that the Raven needs a change. There is a wonderful looking ship sitting there, it just needs to be finished. As it stands the Raven looks like a designer had his kids design a half each and then melded it together. Give it some symmetry, at the least the wings should be close to identical.
|
Miregar Shakor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 13:35:00 -
[58]
Screw the Raven, bring in the Tornado!
|
Dkamanus
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 16:19:00 -
[59]
Its not about being symmetrical or not, its just that the ship design is kinda strange really. I'm getting used to it now. See the Condor Frigate design. Its ****ing awesome. Just some things need to be adjusted for the raven to be pretier without being symetrical.
- Do something about the texture, it sometimes resembles a huge trash can.
- Do something about the part were the ****pit should be. Its hedious and really strange
- Do something about the engine part on the back of the ship. Another angle, idk, but it feels strange the way it is
Leave the rest the way it is...
|
Luna Nilaya
Blood Works Inc.
Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 17:55:00 -
[60]
People who are defending the looks of Raven have absolutely no sense of good art design.
The original Raven model was VERY amateurish looking and they didn't change the basic design almost at all when they remodeled every ship.
-
Installing premium content... Deleting file: \boot.ini |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |