HOME | DD
Bogdanbl4 β ValkyrieV11
Published: 2009-07-08 01:16:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 122226; Favourites: 2144; Downloads: 3633
Redirect to original
Description
DWIVRelated content
Comments: 164
We got a real rocket surgeon here.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yyyup...
Talk about an "armor"...
π: 0 β©: 0
Please make armor/clothing mods for Fallout 4 when comes out.
π: 0 β©: 0
Considering the presence of the gun, it's probably less impractical than it seems.Β Guns are not known for having much respect for any but the heaviest armor, and the legs appear to be designed for mobility. Might be acceptable for the average sniper type, but probably not for anyone else.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
I see a potential flaw in the design of this armor suit.Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe that's because nobody would hit that... or everybody would.
π: 0 β©: 0
because the purpose of armor is to leave vital organs exposed. xD
π: 0 β©: 0
i think i blinded dated her last dollar beer ninght
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, at least... She'd be... Maneuverable?... Ish?
π: 0 β©: 0
"Hey, guys! Look at this chick! No, not the gigantic gun, look at her tits! They are awes-*shot*"
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome. It would be even more awesome if you made a second sketch where she is completely covered up by full-body armour - it would make for an interesting contrast.
π: 0 β©: 0
amazing work. What kind of program you use? maya, blender, or something else?
π: 0 β©: 0
Obviously her weak spot is her mid drift, dah. Easy kill boss.
π: 0 β©: 0
I'd hardly call her dangerous when all it would take is one hit for her to be on the ground, screaming and writhing in agony as she dies.
It's just what you get for running into battle naked.
π: 0 β©: 1
You act as though clothes would stop a bullet.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
No, but armour would, if they were really that technologically advanced.
π: 0 β©: 1
Technologically advanced enough to develop weapons advanced enough to render armor inconsequential.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Offense and defense are two different things. I don't care how advanced you are, even if your weapons blast through enemies before they can get you, shrapnel will fly up, dust will get in your eyes and various crevices, and you won't be a happy camper.
There is no redeeming quality to this design, I cannot and will not ever give it a pass. Modern and futuristic warfare is nowhere to be naked, I'm sorry.
If you want to be naked, be naked. But be naked somewhere that it actually makes sense and wouldn't result in extreme discomfort, injury or even death if you can help it. Perhaps if she was taking a shower when the enemy happened to attack and had no time to put anything on before running out to defend the home base. That would be a sign of badassery because she'd be putting herself in danger to protect what needs to be protected even if it meant riskingΒ extreme discomfort, injury or even death in unfavourable fighting circumstances.
However charging into battle naked (oh, excuse me, with pasties, because that definitely makes a difference) when you have every opportunity and capability to wear full armour and be all the better off for it, is just plain stupidity.
Warrior women are scarce enough as it stands, let's not make the ones we do have look stupid. Okay?
π: 0 β©: 1
You're preaching to the wrong person. I completely agree about the design being ludicrous from any practical standpoint. I was just taking issue with your implication that a thin layer of fabric (or two, or three) would stop a bullet, or whatever kind of weaponry this futuristic world presents itself.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I made no such implication because no, it wouldn't. A layer of fabric to offer breast support or a bit of protection from the elements would be an excellent boon to a warrior woman who doesn't have time to worry about sand getting in her vagina though. And that's just at /least/.
However bare skin wouldn't protect you either. Armour is the highest priority here.
π: 0 β©: 1
"I'd hardly call her dangerous when all it would take is one hit for her to be on the ground, screaming and writhing in agony as she dies.
It's just what you get for running into battle naked."
^ You're implying clothes would negate this danger.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
The presence of armour is what one would consider clothed, am I correct?
You presume too much.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, clothes and armor are not synonymous. I may presume too much, but something tells me if this woman was clothed, you wouldn't have even commented on the impracticality regarding the dangers she'd be subjected to. Trust me, I agree in that there's no logical reason for her to be naked. I was just taking issue with your original comment, as it implies not being naked (in other words: clothed) would somehow protect someone from advanced weaponry, let alone modern weaponry. Armor is certainly the sensible route, but keep in mind many warriors even today don't wear much armor (if at all) despite our current advancement in offensive technology. A helmet maybe, some Kevlar, etc. But my point is, I doubt you'd comment on the impracticality of a woman wearing basic fatigues from head to toe, when in reality she'd be exposed to the same dangers you called into question in your original comment. Savvy?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
For the record, I would still be leery of the design if she was wearing anything less than complete armour. But even if it was only a sports bra for breast support and some spandex shorts to protect her reproductive organs from dust and whatnot, it would /still/ be more practical than this design.
Have you actually fought before? I have- I've engaged heavily in Medieval Martial Arts before, a Page to a Knight.
Of course, training we only fought with round wooden planks covered in padding for safety, but I can tell you /right now/ that even a thin layer of clothing, just a regular long sleeved shirt and pants, took a LOT of the sting off of the hits I received as opposed to hits I received on bare skin (hands, neck). We didn't mess around, when you strike, you would strike hard enough that it could possibly maim or kill someone had you been using an actual sword. Bruises? Yes. There were plenty of those.
But if I hadn't been wearing any clothes at that time, there's a huge possibility that those bruises could have been worse or at least laced with a scrape. Face it, battle is no place to be naked. Running around, possibly falling to the ground and sliding on dirt and rocks and God knows what else. Any protection, even if it's only a little bit, even if it's only a layer of cloth, is /vital/ and /will/ effect your performance. If you yourself wouldn't go out on a battlefield wearing what she's wearing, then she shouldn't be wearing it either. There are no redeeming qualities to this design.
End of discussion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, I have fought. Nothing you said applies, however, because a bullet is going to hurt you with or without clothes on. The reason we don't move around in Medieval armor these days is because our weapons have advanced to disregard it. And again, I'm not arguing being naked is practical. For the 3rd time, I was only addressing your implication that clothes would prevent the chick from the dangers she'd face with or without them.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Crazy impressive concept! Equally as sexy, added to faves 
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>