We were far, far more successful with the overboard than with the wings. In just about every respect. And we put a lot less effort and time into the hoverboard.
And as far as min-maxing goes, fuck that. Do I really need to point out the difference between "struggling, awkward flight with near collision on takeoff, awkward control, massive amounts of grief, an impractically huge wingspan, and an utter mess of a crash-landing" and "smooth, easy long-distance flight, easy takeoff, tiny amount of grief, easily controlled, and a perfect landing, all from making a simple
board to stand on"? Forget fucking dice. Let's try
not crashing into buildings and falling off of them. And while we're at it,
being able to take flight without a dozen meters of clearance. Plus,
can actually take to the air without struggling.
@Ugolino
And no, Ugo, it
did NOT work fine. Crashing and tumbling off a building's roof is
not fine. Struggling to gain any kind of altitude is
not fine. Struggling to stay in the air and maintain control
is not fine.
Do I really need to quote the quest entries themselves to get the point across? Because so far, you've just been making shit up. Those small grief wings we naturally formed before? We didn't do shit with those.
Okay, rant time. Because I'm really sick and tired of you not even bothering to actually read and understand my posts, then making some kind of counterargument against a set of points
I never even made, whilst effectively ignoring the ones that I
did make. So then I have to take the effort of explaining to you that, no, you misunderstood completely and did not get the actual idea, so let me explain it more thoroughly and carefully. So that you
don't misunderstand it again. And then I get mocked for writing walls of text, which people don't even bother to read. So we're back to square 1.
Let me clarify: I don't mind disagreement at all. What pisses me off is when you continually, and
badly, misunderstand what I'm saying
and then mock me for your failure to understand. It's not even strawman, it's like you completely miss the point in a way that makes it clear you didn't even bother to read any of it carefully. Which then forces me to write an even longer post to correct you and explain, in detail, the same ideas you completely failed to understand the first time.
And then you do it again.
And I
know you aren't doing more than just briefly skimming them, because you will read the first sentence in a paragraph I wrote, and then jump to an incorrect conclusion that
I devoted the second sentence to clarifying away.
TL;DR?
All of these walls of text exist because you fail reading comprehension, either out of laziness or a really bad sense of logic. Skimming or skipping them is basically pulling the "whatever, don't care" card that created the problem in the first place.
And if you still don't care? That's fine! Just let me know, so I can stop bothering to even try to communicate with you. Because you aren't even trying to listen.
Now, I'd respond to some of your other points, specifically, but people don't bother reading that much. Why put the effort in if no one is even going to bother? Hell, I already explained the utility of a "backpack/harness" grief construct for general flight. I pre-emptively provided counter arguments to all of the points you tried to make, so why bother rehashing them? If you want to believe 10-meter wings that we struggled to utilize even in a basic manner (and badly crashed with) are more practical than something we objectively performed far better with, with far less effort and time, then go ahead and just reject the evidence. But don't pretend it doesn't exist.