"Realistic" vs "Fantasy" debate
#32

I believe the plane that sparked this debate is the proposed Hurricane EX (I suppose the EX means experimental, and as such a nice designation for a fantasy plane). The model is a result of a "what if" scenario where Sovjet took over Hungarian license production of the Hurribird and continued development. Personally, I'm all for making this bird, I am all for discussing it's proposed characteristics (lacking the post-cockpit filler it would lack some of the Hurries sideways stability for ex), and I'm very thankful for the modeller spending their time and talent on giving us interesting types, even if they represent planes that never even was planned. I for one enjoy the Hurries we have (and the Sea Hurricanes too!), and would love to see what potential existed in the basic design.

Fantasy planes or historical planes are ultimately the result of what modellers feel like making. This debate is a parallel to the debate over historical maps, scaled maps and fantasy maps. We are given what someone care to make. Those who feel that the time making non-historical planes (or maps) would be better spent on making historical ones, or improving what we already have, have misunderstood the process. The modellers that wish to make the experimental Hurricane or Porco Rossos plane make those planes because they wish to. They do not necessarily wish to make the Do 17, Helldiver or other historical planes we miss. There is no either or, we get what the modellers want to make and share with us, or we get nothing.
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)