In the REARM dev group I encourage people to be as blunt as they can, because being tactful is so ineffective to me. And because the lack of criticism and only praise really doesn't filter out the bad and really dumb ideas. Inevitably that always leads to Fil.zp explaining he didn't mean to offend anyone and me or someone else explaining he didn't mean to offend anyone back.
Birdness. It isn't the goal, it is the result I like. I made something, I didn't plan it and it turned out that in my mind (not necessary in other people's minds) it has this particular bird-like quality.
I didn't set myself to make the Defender to look like a bird. And now that it looks like a bird to me, it isn't my goal to continue searching for ways it would look like a bird more, or for the ways it'll look like a bird from a different viewer's perspective.
Here I have to say I'm quite stubborn, I'm still way too fond of my model here.
I really really do need to hear the criticism, it's indescribably important. To hear what's wrong with it, or what's perceived as unfitting, over-complicated, or just plain moronic. And it doesn't have to change my mind, sometimes it's just a great tool for testing the waters, to get a feel for which aspects of my designs are weaker or aren't shared as broadly and which hold up. As a metaphor it's like that colored stress simulation of constructions in engineering.
Now oversimplified models and explanations of problems my configuration solves:
Don't forget the basic solution needs the arms to be double jointed:
First they need to unfold to the side and then they need to rise up:
Technically they can be single jointed, but the wings would then have to be connected by a joint looking like this:
While mine has a single flat angle:
Like this, because the elevation is performed by the body itself:
With its mechanical simplicity I find it to be way more elegant solution.
And with the wings still angled forward I don't compromise on that claw-like nature: