Unforgiven
Spaceman
So either the specs are wrong, or the games are wrong. What do I believe?!?
CamW: Great model!
CamW: Great model!
And I'm sure LOAF will come up with an explanation of why they're both right!Originally posted by Rampage3051
It's all good
Originally posted by Ijuin
Unforgiven wrote:
"So either the specs are wrong, or the games are wrong. What do I believe?!?"
My best guess is that the people who wrote the specs confused meters with feet. That would make the Dragon 40 FEET in length, not 40 meters. Using feet instead of meters would also make the size of the ship match the weight better--if a ship 40 meters long with 300mm thick armor (that's a foot thick!) weighed only 26 tons as stated, then the armor would have to weigh less than half as much as aluminum.
Originally posted by I'm thinkin...
The people who wrote the specs are not wrong. If you think of fighters in terms of todays specs things balance out fairly evenly. Most aircraft today are somewhere around 30 or 40 FEET long or more in some cases. Todays Aircraft carriers are anywhere from 900 to 1200 FEET long. So things are basically proportional to one another. In the WC Games, carriers (with the exception of the Vesuvius and Midway classes) are somewhere between 700 and 1000 METERS in length. So fighters have to proprtional to these lengths, thats why the specs list fighters as being 30 or 40 METERS long.
P.S. Don't quote me on any of the lengths for the modern day carriers or anything. I'm no expert on the Navy but it seems like those measurements are in the ballpark.
Originally posted by Hoops
We're talking about the cockpit sizes vs the size of the ship. Those seem to be off, not the size of the fighter itself.
Originally posted by Hoops
We're talking about the cockpit sizes vs the size of the ship. Those seem to be off, not the size of the fighter itself.