POF editing is easy enough, the real hard part is taking a complete model and adjusting the mesh and the UVs. Thankfully, there's a modeler who's willing to do it, so looks like we're in luck.
When Hades is done with it (not saying "finished", I know how that usually goes
), Col.Hornet will probably step in. It would be especially funny if his version ended up being done first...
The missile pods on my model are not going to move away from being tapered, period. It gives it an aggressive look, which I think fits the Ursa more than boring and primitive. I may undo the curve and make it more like Spoon's suggestion, but I will not be removing the taper.
It would be a good idea to try Spoon's idea, because the current version isn't even that good looking. The current taper lightens the bomber too much from the bottom and looks just plain out of place (literally, the only 45 degree angle like that on the entire front profile, on something that is mostly right angles). Indeed, I think that overtly aggressive look doesn't fit that particular design. It looks halfway between the "implacable and heavy" look and "fast attacker" one, sending a mixed message (it has a "fast" front/back and "slow" sides). Note, all this is regardless of what this model is supposed to be.
Ah, so looking at real life things that actually were bulky, rugged, and tough, like tanks, in an effort to make a ship carry those qualities is somehow a negative and doesn't apply. Ok, well, that's an... er, interesting opinion, but it explains a great deal about your approach to visual design.
The thing is, tanks are a diverse lot and certainly not the first thing people think of when looking at space fighters (and Ursa is not designed to explicitly evoke a tank). See "reality is unrealistic" effect. FS is not ArmA, and the
perception of how something is "supposed" to look is more important than what something would actually look like IRL. That's my point. It doesn't matter if the biggest lumbering behemoth actually fielded in WWII had a lot of curves or not. It matters that right angles and flat surfaces are associated with toughness and ruggedness.
TBH, even when thinking of tanks, most people will picture the (very angular) M1 Abrams, unless they live far enough east to think of round-turreted Soviet/Russian ones instead (or in Israel, which uses the Merkava, which is angular like the Abrams). The modern tanks are also notably missing the "slow" part (they're anything but).