Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9728202" data-attributes="member: 18">I'm afraid it absolutely is. The problem is a comprehension-of-argument one on your end or an explanation-of-argument one on everyone else's end (&quot;No, it is the children who are wrong&quot;), or some slider in-between.No.You can have pointless decorative wings that &quot;flap&quot; however you want, but these aren't that. They're huge and wrong. [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] details exactly why.At a certain point you need so much magic that it's all magic, and you're way past that here. But even with magic, these wings are an impediment! Literally some laughably undersized pair of joke wings would be more plausible.[ATTACH=full]414304[/ATTACH]Like, obviously this guy is getting almost all of his lift and probably motive force from magic (unlike Toothless), but the wings at least face the right way and probably aren't causing a huge problem.Any dragon with wings like those pictured would have absolutely zero &quot;agility&quot; in the air. It could fly backwards pretty quickly and nothing else.And again, there's reason nothing that's eagle-sized or larger (or even quite a bit smaller) flies like a hummingbird. It's not for a &quot;lack of magic&quot; either. It's because it's not workable to flap and twist larger wings at the sorts of speeds you'd need to. Even with magic somehow allowing it to work better there's a fundamental issue that isn't solved unless &quot;It's not air you're breathing&quot; levels of magic/fantasy is going on.That's not really true. A lot of very large dragons have semi-plausible aerodynamics, or ones where a fairly small amount of magic could be needed to support them, or are pretty much explicitly magic (like the new Gold Dragon). That you don't think it's an issues shows that you're not actually understand why it is an issue.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9728202, member: 18"] I'm afraid it absolutely is. The problem is a comprehension-of-argument one on your end or an explanation-of-argument one on everyone else's end ("No, it is the children who are wrong"), or some slider in-between. No. You can have pointless decorative wings that "flap" however you want, but these aren't that. They're huge and wrong. [USER=6790260]@EzekielRaiden[/USER] details exactly why. At a certain point you need so much magic that it's [I]all magic[/I], and you're way past that here. But even with magic, these wings are an impediment! Literally some laughably undersized pair of joke wings would be more plausible. [ATTACH type="full" width="329px" alt="1755077753922.png"]414304[/ATTACH] Like, obviously this guy is getting almost all of his lift and probably motive force from magic (unlike Toothless), but the wings at least face the right way and probably aren't causing a huge problem. Any dragon with wings like those pictured would have absolutely zero "agility" in the air. It could fly backwards pretty quickly and nothing else. And again, there's reason nothing that's eagle-sized or larger (or even quite a bit smaller) flies like a hummingbird. It's not for a "lack of magic" either. It's because it's not workable to flap and twist larger wings at the sorts of speeds you'd need to. Even with magic somehow allowing it to work better there's a fundamental issue that isn't solved unless "It's not air you're breathing" levels of magic/fantasy is going on. That's not really true. A lot of very large dragons have semi-plausible aerodynamics, or ones where a fairly small amount of magic could be needed to support them, or are pretty much explicitly magic (like the new Gold Dragon). That you don't think it's an issues shows that you're not actually understand why it is an issue. [/QUOTE]

Verification